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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2614 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2614

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain printed golf umbrellas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain printed golf umbrellas.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN GOLF UMBRELLAS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.66.01       Umbrellas, each     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          having an arc                                                      31/2011.......
                          greater than 165
                          cm, with a
                          printed or
                          imprinted canopy
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          6601.99.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20033

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GANTRY LADREW UTLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-96-CR-74-5

- - - - - - - - - -

December 2, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gantry Ladrew Utley appeals his conviction and sentence for

aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with intent to

distribute on March 11, 1996, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The evidence was not insufficient

to support the conviction. See United States v. El-Zoubi, 993

F.2d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d

1539, 1551 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d

928, 936 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 726 (1998). 
No. 98-20033

-2-

The jury was free to infer from taped telephone calls involving

Utley, as interpreted by Utley’s codefendant and cousin, that he

was directly involved in the March 11, 1996, transaction and that

he sought by his actions to make it succeed. See Gonzales, 121

F.3d at 936.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1


OCTUS, 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of OCTuS, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Christian J. Soderquist, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








By: /s/ CHRISTIAN J. SODERQUIST


Christian J. Soderquist


Chief Executive Officer


September 26, 2011
The District Court of the 13th Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. SUSAN YOUNG, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-96-223 DECISION

On April 28, 2008, the defendant was sentenced for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence as follows: COUNTS I - VI: Forgery, Common Scheme, a felony, a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of ten (10) years all suspended to run concurrently with each other and Counts VII and XI; COUNT VII: Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, a felony, a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years to run consecutively with Count XI; COUNTS VIII and IX: Forgery, Common Scheme, a felony, a commitment to the Department of Corrections for the term of ten (10) years all suspended to run concurrently with each other and Counts I-VII and XI; COUNT X: Forgery, a felony, a *31commitment to the Department of Corrections for the term of ten (10) years all suspended to run concurrently with all Counts; and COUNT XI: Forgery, Common Scheme, a felony, a commitment to the Department of Corrections for the term of twenty (20) years all suspended to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Criminal Cause Number DC-95-0408.

On April 2, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was not present. Kris Copenhaver was present and stated that she is counsel of record for the defendant. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, Ms. Copenhaver informed the Division that the defendant’s case is still pending before the District Court for determination of an appropriate credit for time served and requested that the application for review of sentence be continued pending the outcome of the decision of the District Court.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the Application for Review of Sentence shall be continued until the next available hearings in October 2010.

Done in open Court this 2nd day of April, 2010.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
Seventh Amendment to the Bowater Incorporated Retirement Plan



 Exhibit10.3 
 SEVENTH AMENDMENT 
 TO THE
BOWATER INCORPORATED RETIREMENT PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Bowater Incorporated
(the “Corporation”) maintains the Bowater Incorporated Retirement Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), effective as of October 31, 2000, for the benefit of certain of its employees and former employees; 
 WHEREAS, Section 9.1 of the Plan reserves to the Corporation the authority to amend the Plan at any time and from time to time, which
authority has been delegated to the Human Resources and Compensation Committee (the “HRCC”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation
also maintains the Supplemental Benefit Plan for Designated Employees of Bowater Incorporated (the “SERP”) and the Bowater Incorporated Benefits Equalization Plan (the “Equalization Plan”), each of which were amended to
(1) cease participation, benefit accrual and compensation increases for grandfathered SERP participants (as defined in Section 2.05(c) of the SERP per the Fifth Amendment) under the SERP, and (2) cease participation, benefit accrual
and compensation increases under the Equalization Plan for any Equalization Plan participant who is actively employed and who is also a participant in the SERP, and 
 WHEREAS, consistent with the changes made to the SERP and Equalization Plan, the HRCC desires to amend the Plan to, effective as of December 31, 2007, cease participation in the Plan, benefit accrual and
compensation increases for Participants who are actively employed and who are also participants in the SERP. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, Plan
Section 3.2 is amended, effective as of January 1, 2008, to add new subsection (g) to read as follows: 
 “3.2
Participation. 
 * * * 
 (g) Notwithstanding any provision in the Plan to the contrary, effective as of December 31, 2007, the accrued benefit of any Participant who is actively employed and who is also a participant in the Supplemental
Benefit Plan for Designated Employees of Bowater Incorporated (the ‘SERP’), shall cease to accrue and such Participant shall become a participant in the automatic company contribution portion of the Bowater Incorporated Retirement Savings
Plan, as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2007, if otherwise eligible and in accordance with such plan. With respect to any such Participant, in no event shall Compensation or Benefit Service (including imputed Benefit Service
for a period of Disability under the applicable provisions of Supplements 1, 2, 3 and 4) relating to periods after December 31, 2007 be taken into account in calculating the Participant’s Accrued Benefit. Notwithstanding the preceding,
such Participant shall continue to accrue Vesting Service under the Plan.” 
 * * * 
 [signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Seventh
Amendment to the Plan to be adopted and executed by its duly authorized officer this 27th day of November 2007. 
  

			
	BOWATER INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jim T. Wright

		 	Jim T. Wright
	Its:	 	Executive Vice President – Human Resources


  

 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Banks, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 664]

Motion for reargument and reconsideration denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Duhs, Appellant.

Submitted June 14, 2010;

decided June 24, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**MALT BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, GABLER'S BEVERAGE**  **DISTRIBUTOR, INC. AND PKD, INC.,**

**Petitioners**

**v.**

**PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD,** 

**Respondent**

**OHIO SPRINGS, INC. AND SHEETZ,**

**Intervenors :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 648 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 16th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Permission to**

**Substitute Answer to Petition for Allowance of Appeal of Intervener is** GRANTED

**.**

**Furthermore, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is** GRANTED **. The issues, as stated**

**by petitioner, are:**

**(1) Can a single store sell both gasoline and beer without violating the Liquor**

**Code?**

**(2) Section 404 of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. §4-404, prohibits the transfer of a liquor license to a “location” where “the sale of liquid fuels or oil is**  **conducted”; what is a location?** 8 MAP 2016**[648 MAL 2015] - 2**

**(3) Section 468(a)(3) of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. §4 -468(a)(3), prohibits the**  **transfer of a liquor license to “any place or property upon which is located**  **as a business the sale of liquid fuels and oil”; what is a place or property?** 

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this** 

**matter.**
#### In the Matter of Hattie G. Martin, Deceased. Miladin Dobric, Appellant; David J. Baron, Respondent.

Submitted June 28, 2010;

decided October 14, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain it. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2598 

To suspend temporarily the duty on imports of certain handheld moving 

coil dynamic microphones. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 30, 2009 

Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on imports of certain 

handheld moving coil dynamic microphones. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IMPORTS OF CERTAIN HANDHELD MOVING 

4 COIL DYNAMIC MICROPHONE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2598 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Self-contained, single-element 

unidirectional (cardioid) dynamic microphone incorporating a copper coil, neodymium magnet, steel mesh 

grille, zinc die-cast handle 

(zamak 3 or equivalent), a 

frequency response between 

60 Hz and 15 kHz and less 

than 10 dB deviation across 

frequency range (provided for 

in subheading 8518.10.8030) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10174 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JAMES GATLIN

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 152

- 2

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent James Gatlin has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Gatlin h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief an d the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10174 Document: 00514279348 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017No. 16

- 10174

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from furt her responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-10174 Document: 00514279348 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roy Martin, Also Known as Reality Martin, Appellant.

Submitted July 12, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.2
 STERLING FINANCIAL CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF RETURN ON AVERAGE ASSETS
 For the Year Ended December 31, 2007
 Total AssetsYTD12/31/2006
    
    
    9,834,492,00001/31/2007
    
    
    9,884,332,15102/28/2007
    
    
    9,911,167,47503/31/2007
    
    
    11,399,621,00004/30/2007
    
    
    11,477,465,17305/31/2007
    
    
    11,512,766,10306/30/2007
    
    
    11,463,647,00007/31/2007
    
    
    11,576,844,07508/31/2007
    
    
    11,598,507,18209/30/2007
    
    
    11,746,915,00010/31/2007
    
    
    11,917,501,02311/30/2007
    
    
    12,003,521,47912/31/2007
    
    
    12,149,775,060146,476,554,721Number of Months
    
    
    13Average
    
    
    11,267,427,286Net Income
    
    $
    93,288,520ROA
    
    
    0.83
    %
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 25796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12576]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending May 16, 
2009

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1383 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2009-0113.
    Date Filed: May 11, 2009.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: CSC/31/Meet/005/09 dated April 8, 2009. Finally Adopted 
Resolutions: Resolution 623 and Recommended Practice 1630. Intended 
effective date: 1 October 2009.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. E9-12576 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
#### In the Matter of New York Charter School Association et al., Respondents, v M. Patricia Smith, as Commissioner of Labor, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Foundation for a Greater Opportunity et al., Respondents, v M. Patricia Smith, as Commissioner of Labor, et al., Appellants. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Submitted August 2, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

Motion by New York State United Teachers for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Three copies of the brief *785must be served and an original and 24 copies filed within seven days.
s



# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

March 12, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00127

- CV

EL CABALLERO RANCH, INC , et al, Appellant

v.

GRACE RIVER RANCH, L.L.C., Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas
Trial Court No. 13

- 04

- 00108

- CVL Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellants filed a “Motion for Emergency Stay of Temporary Injunction Challenged in Interlocutory Appeal” on March 11, 2015, requesting that the enforcement of the injunctive relief granted in the trial court’s “Partial Summary Judgment” order si g ned on March 3, 2015 be stayed pending resolution of this interlocutory appeal. The trial court’s order expressly states that it is effective on March 13, 2015. After due consideration, appellants’ motion to stay is GR ANTED.
The enforcement of the injunctive relief granted in the trial court’s “P artial S ummary J udgment ”
order signed on March 3, 2015 is STAYED pending resolution of this interlocutory appeal or
further order of the Court. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 29.3

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 1 2th day of March, 2015

.

______________ _____________________ Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court