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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4085 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4085

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 7,7'' - 
[(2-methyl-1,5-pentanediyl) bis[imino(6-fluoro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl) 
  imino]] bis[ 4-hydroxy-3-[(4-methoxy sulfophenyl) azo]-, potassium 
                              sodium salt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 31, 2004

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 7,7'' - 
[(2-methyl-1,5-pentanediyl) bis[imino(6-fluoro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl) 
  imino]] bis[ 4-hydroxy-3-[(4-methoxy sulfophenyl) azo]-, potassium 
                              sodium salt.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON 2-NAPHTHALENESULFONIC ACID, 7,7" - 
              [(2-METHYL-1,5-PENTANEDIYL) BIS[IMINO(6-FLUORO-1,3,5-
              TRIAZINE-4,2-DIYL) IMINO]] BIS[ 4-HYDROXY-3-[(4-METHOXY 
              SULFOPHENYL) AZO]-, POTASSIUM SODIUM SALT.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking heading 
9902.32.86 and inserting the following:

``      9902.32.86       2-                 Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Naphthalenesulfon                                                  31/2007
                         ic acid, 7,7" -
                         [(2-methyl-1,5-
                         pentanediyl)
                         bis[imino(6-
                         fluoro-1,3,5-
                         triazine-4,2-
                         diyl) imino]]
                         bis[ 4-hydroxy-3-
                         [(4-methoxy
                         sulfophenyl) azo]-
                         , potassium
                         sodium salt (CAS
                         No. 152397-21-2)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3204.16.30)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

MISH INTERNATIONAL MONETARY,

INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly 

situated,

 v.

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD., et al.

Case No. 1:20-cv-04577

Judge Manish S. Shah

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION TO THE TRADER DEFENDANTS’ 

RULE 26(c) MOTION TO STAY ALL REMAINING FACT DISCOVERY

Plaintiff Mish International Monetary, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits this 

supplemental opposition to the Trader Defendants’ motion seeking a stay. ECF No. 387.

The Trader Defendants confirmed yesterday they intend to proceed with their deposition of 

a non-party crude oil storage broker on October 9, 2024. Plaintiff respectfully submits that if it is 

necessary for the Trader Defendants to defend against Plaintiff’s individual claims by taking the 

deposition of a non-party storage broker, then it is even more necessary for Plaintiff to take the 

depositions of the named Defendants in order to prosecute Plaintiff’s individual claims.

CONCLUSION

The Trader Defendants’ motion for a stay should be denied.

Dated: October 7, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Christopher M. McGrath

Christopher Lovell 

Christopher M. McGrath

Benjamin Jaccarino 

Travis H. Carter

LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN 

JACOBSON LLP 

500 5th Avenue, Suite 2440

New York, New York 10110

Telephone: (212) 608-1900 

Facsimile: (212) 719-4677 
2

Marvin A. Miller

Andy Szot

MILLER LAW LLC

53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1320 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Telephone: (312) 332-3400

Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Class Counsel
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6571
BOBBY STROMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (2:07-cv-02738-HMH) Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby Stroman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bobby Stroman seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stroman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 99.1 -- Servicer's Annual Statement of Compliance


			Countrywide
			HOME LOANS

   	                400 Countrywide Way
			Simi Valley, California 93065-6298

March 15, 2005

US BANK
209 LASALLE ST 3 FL
CHICAGO, IL 60604
Attn: MIKE ORTIZ


OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

I, Joseph Candelario, hereby certify that I am the First Vice
President, Loan Administration of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
fka Countrywide Funding Corporation. I further certify, with
respect to the Servicing Agreements for Countrywide Mortgage
Obligations, Inc., the following:

I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Servicer
during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 under the
Agreements and, to the best of my knowledge, based on my
review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its duties,
responsibilities or obligations under the Agreements
throughout the fiscal year.

/s/ Joseph Candelario			March 15, 2005

Joseph Candelario			Date
First Vice President
Compliance Officer
Loan Administration



re: Investor Numbers: 7003769, 7004068
See Deal Name listing on following page.


US BANK Deal Name Listing:

7003769 - HARBORVIEW 2003-3
7004068 - HVMLT 2004-2
**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**

|   | 1. | The                Annual 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 Annual Report fairly represents, in                all                material respects, the financial condition and result of operations                of the                Registrant. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                          |                                                      |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                          | /s/ Steven                  M.                  Hill |
|   | Steven                  M. Hill                                                               |
|   | Chief                    Financial Officer,MACRO Securities Depositor,                    LLC |

----
564 A.2d 1048

#### EASTERN INVESTMENT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 13, 1989.

Decided Oct. 13, 1989.

Melvin Alan Bank, Bank, Minehart & D’Angelo, Philadelphia, for petitioner.

Ronald H. Skubecz, Eugene J. Anastasio, Deputy Attys. Gen., Harrisburg, for respondent.

Before CRUMLISH, Jr., President Judge, and CRAIG, DOYLE, BARRY, COLINS, McGINLEY and SMITH, JJ.

OPINION

BARRY, Judge.

In *Eastern Investment Co. v. Commonwealth,*123 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 510, 554 A.2d 604 (1989), we affirmed an order of the Board of Finance and Revenue which denied a refund request by petitioner, Eastern Investment Company. Petitioner had conveyed a parcel of property to the Redevelopment Authority of Berks County (Authority) by deed for a stated consideration of $3,800,000. When the deed was recorded, petitioner claimed that the transaction was exempt from the real estate transfer tax under Section 1102-C of the Tax Reform Code of 1971, Act of March 4, 1971, P.L. 6, *as amended, added by*Act of May 5, 1981, P.L. 36, *as amended,*because the Authority was a “nonprofit industrial development agency”. The Department of *115Revenue issued a determination that this transfer was subject to the transfer tax. Petitioner paid the tax under protest and then sought a refund. The Board of Finance and Revenue denied the request and petitioner appealed to this Court.

As already mentioned, petitioner argued that the Authority was a “nonprofit industrial development agency”, thereby exempting the transaction from the real estate transfer tax. For the reasons explained in our opinion, we rejected this argument and affirmed the order of the Board of. Finance and Revenue. *Eastern Investment.*Petitioner filed exceptions, again advancing the same arguments that were put forth before the three judge panel. Suffice it to say that petitioner has been unable to convince us that our original decision is flawed. We will therefore deny these exceptions, relying upon our original discussion. *Id.*

ORDER

AND NOW, October 13,1989, these exceptions are denied and the Prothonotary is directed to enter judgment in favor of the respondent.
#### Manasses Lyles *v.*D. Mathews and Wife.

Executors and Administrators — Loaning Money of Estate.

An administrator will not tie required to loan money out, when, because of litigation, be might be required to account for it at any time.

APPEAL, PROM MoCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

April 22, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge PRyoe:

The history of this controversy shows that the administrator of Jacob Wafford saw proper, notwithstanding the opinion of this court, to pay off the heirs of Joseph Wafford their claims without any proof, or even affidavits of their correctness, as required by the statute. The claims for extra services allowed by the county court were properly rejected; also the $200 as attorney’s fee; $175 had been properly allowed and the present judgment allows an additional $100. If the claims of the administrator and his attorneys are all directed to be paid the litigation would be productive of little good *679to the heirs of Jacob Wafford, as such a result would indicate that it was instituted more for the benefit of the administrator and his attorney than thos'e really interested. It is doubtful whether the $143, by which the administrator was credited on account of improper charges for rent, should have been allowed as such. There is nothing in the record showing that he is entitled to this credit, but inasmuch as this court had decided that the heirs of Joseph Waf-ford were entitled to $100, we are disposed to permit this, with the interest, to set-off this credit thus improperly allowed. We see no-reason for reversing this case on the original appeal, but it is questionable whether it should not be reversed on the cross-appeal. The fact that the administrator succeeded in the litigation with Joseph Wafford’s heirs, and managed the,, estate as he thought best, does not authorize this court to substitute him to- the rights of the heirs of Jacob Wafford and give him what is left of the estate. The item of $17.00 clerk’s fees was also properly rejected as the administrator had the right to collect this of Joseph Wafford’s heirs. He should be charged with interest, and we think the date fixed by th'e court is just and equitable. The termination of the litigation was uncertain and we are not disposed to say in such a case that the administrator should be required to loan fhe money out when he might be required to account for it at any moment.

Husbands, *for appellant.*

*Bullock, for appellees.*

Judgment is *affirmed.*
Exhibit (23a)





INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT








We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Met-Pro Corporation on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-155981, 333-125664, 333-68220 and 333-44471) of our report dated March 17, 2011 with respect to our audits of the consolidated financial statements and related consolidated financial statement schedule of Met-Pro Corporation as of January 31, 2011 and 2010 and for the years then ended and our report dated March 17, 2011 with respect to our audit of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Met-Pro Corporation as of January 31, 2011, which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Met-Pro Corporation for the year ended January 31, 2011.








/s/ Marcum LLPMarcum LLPBala Cynwyd, PennsylvaniaMarch 17, 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KEVIN C. ELLISON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 418 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of November, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4037 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4037

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  475 Kell Farm Drive in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as the ``Richard G. 
             Wilson Processing and Distribution Facility''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 475 
Kell Farm Drive in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Richard G. Wilson Processing and Distribution 
Facility''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Richard G. Wilson Processing 
and Distribution Facility''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Creath Shropshire, Trustee, etc., *v.*W. S. Pryor.

Trusts — Discretion of Trustee — Sale and! Re-Investment.

Where a trust deed, authorizes a trustee to dispose of the land and invest the proceeds in other land in a manner to promote the interest of the cestuis que trustent, the trustee was invested with, such discretion as to the welfare of the cestuis que trustent as authorizes a •re-investment of the proceeds of the sale in other land in trust for the beneficiaries.

.Execution — Title to Property.

Where at the time a creditor subjected land to the payment of his debt, the legal title was not in the debtor, the sale passed no title to the purchaser, since a sale under execution was not the proper . means of subjecting the land.

APPEAL FROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT.

June 6, 1873.

*723
      *Lindsey, for appellant.*

*Oarnaby, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

By the deed of Joseph Shropshire of October 7, 1841, the trustee, Crockett Shropshire, was authorized to “dispose of the land, the ultimate proceeds of which were invested in the land bought of Emmerson,” in a manner so as to promote the interest of Mrs. Porter “and her increase,” otherwise, her children. This, in our opinion, gave such discretion to the trustee in view of the welfare of the family, the raising and maintenance of the children as admitted of the investment in the land conveyed by Emmerson, simply in trust for Mrs. Porter.

The appellee had therefore a right, under Sec. 23, Chapter 80 of the Revised Statutes, to subject the interest of Mrs. Porter to his debts, and her children having no vested interest, and not being necessary parties, could not question the correctness of the judgment, even for errors which might be available to them if they were interested parties.

The appellee failed to exhibit the record evidence of his judgments, executions and securities, and his assignment of the claim of Buckley & Pierce. But the non-production of these evidences is virtually cured by the admissions of Mrs. Porter’s answer; and the plaintiff showed himself entitled to relief in equity, to the extent of subjecting enough of the land to pay his debts, interest and costs. But he was not entitled to the relief the court adjudged sustaining his claim, to the 25 acres of land under his purchase and the sheriff’s deed, for the reason that the legal title not being in Mrs. Porter; the levy and sale under execution was not the appropriate or authorized means of subjecting the land and passed no title to the appellees.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions- to render a judgment setting aside the sheriff’s sale and deed, but enforcing the plaintiff’s claims by a sale of enough of the land to satisfy the same and costs of sale, should one be made.

Judge Pryor did not sit in this case.
Guidelines for the Documentation of 

the Examination of Tools and Toolmarks Page 1 of 4 Adopted 12/04/13 

Guidelines for the Documentation of the Examination of 

Tools and Toolmarks

1.0 Objective 

The purpose of this document is to set forth guidelines to examiners conducting forensic 

examinations of tools/toolmarks. 

2.0 Introduction

2.1 The examination of any tool/toolmark will be documented. This documentation 

should include the condition and physical characteristics of the tool/toolmark as 

received and will include information related to tests conducted with the tool. 

2.2 Generally accepted forms of documentation include, but are not limited to, 

worksheets, laboratory notes, sketches, photographs, video, and reference 

material. 

3.0 Safety Considerations

3.1 It is the responsibility of the user of this guideline to establish appropriate health 

and safety practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior 

to use. 

3.2 Toolmark evidence in the laboratory environment is not dangerous if handled 

correctly. 

4.0 Documentation of Physical Characteristics

4.1 Documentation of a tool should include the following (when applicable): 

4.1.1 Brand 

4.1.2 Type (i.e. hammer, bolt cutters) 

4.1.3 Size 

4.1.4 Dimensions/Shape of working surface 

4.1.5 Labeling of working surface(s) 

4.1.6 Damage 

4.1.7 Trace evidence 
Guidelines for the Documentation of 

the Examination of Tools and Toolmarks Page 2 of 4 Adopted 12/04/13 

4.2 Documentation of a toolmark should include the following (when applicable): 

4.2.1 Dimensions/Shape 

4.2.2 Type (i.e. impressed/striated/direction) 

4.2.3 Trace evidence 

4.2.4 Source (tool type) 

5.0 Documentation of Examination

5.1 Documentation of examination of a tool may include the following: 

5.1.1 Action type (i.e. cutting, prying, pinching, shearing) 

5.1.2 Test material (i.e. lead, copper, Mikrosil) 

5.1.3 Testing procedure (i.e. manner of use, angle, direction of motion) 

5.2 Documentation of examination of a toolmark may include the following: 

5.2.1 Direct 

5.2.2 Indirect (i.e. casting) 

5.2.3 Comparison 
Guidelines for the Documentation of 

the Examination of Tools and Toolmarks Page 3 of 4 Adopted 12/04/13 

Appendix 1 – References

1. Miller J. An Introduction to the Forensic Examination of Toolmarks. AFTE Journal. 2001 

July;33(3):233-248. 

2. Miller J, Beach G. Toolmarks: Examining the Possibility of Subclass Characteristics. AFTE 

Journal. 2005 Oct;37(4):296-345. 

3. Freels R. Mikrosil Casting Material Information. AFTE Journal. 1983 Apr;15(2):80. 

4. Cochrane DW. Class Characteristics of Cutting Tools and Surface Designations. AFTE 

Journal. 1985 July;17(3):73-82. 
Guidelines for the Documentation of 

the Examination of Tools and Toolmarks Page 4 of 4 Adopted 12/04/13 

Appendix 2 – Document History 

Date Section Changes 

06/20/2013 Draft Approved 

08/02/2013 Posted for Review 

12/04/2013 Adopted
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4536

_____________________________

LAURI BURRIS, GREGORY F.

BURRIS, DOUGLAS O. ROWE,

RONALD E. BROWN, JR., JACOB 

CHAPMAN, and MELISSA BURRIS,

Petitioners,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition—Original Jurisdiction.

June 20, 2018

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Mitchell A. Stone, Jacksonville Beach, H. Franklin Robbins, Jr., 

Orlando, and Steven G. Mason, Altamonte Springs, for Petitioners.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.