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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2483 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2483

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on cyanuric chloride.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on cyanuric chloride.

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

SECTION 1. CYANURIC CHLORIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.45 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to cyanuric chloride) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (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to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 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>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                            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 of Kaire Holdings,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Steven Westlund,
Chief Executive  Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of the
undersigned knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.



                                                  /s/ Steven Westlund
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Steven Westlund
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  August 19, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 of CNH Holdings Company on Form
10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, A. Katrina  Roche,
Chief Executive Officer 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/    A. Katrina Roche
------------------------------------------------
A. Katrina Roche
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer for part of reporting period) and Director


February 15, 2006


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 10.1.2

Amendment #2 to 1992 Incentive Award Plan

Effective August 1, 2002 Section 4.01 of the Sport Chalet, Inc. Amended 1992
Incentive Award Plan was amended and restated to read in full as follows:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 4.01 Maximum Number of Rights or Shares in the Aggregate. Subject to
Sections 4.02 and 15.08 hereof, the maximum number of Rights and Shares
which may become subject to Incentive Awards granted under the Plan shall be
One Million Five Hundred Thousand (1,500,000)] in the aggregate of which One
Hundred One Thousand (101,000) are reserved for the Automatic Option Grants
to Non-employee Directors as set forth in Article IX.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# ACTION:

Announcement of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the second meeting of the HIT Policy Committee in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.).

# DATES:

HIT Policy Committee meeting on June 16, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. [Eastern Time].

# ADDRESSES:

HIT Policy Committee Meeting, Hubert H. Humphrey Building (200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 505A. Please bring photo ID for entry to a Federal building.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

*http://healthit.hhs.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will include presentations from the HIT Policy Committee Workgroups. Space is limited, and seating is on a first-come, first-served basis. The meeting will be available via Web cast. If you have special needs for the meeting, please contact (202) 690-7151.

Dated: June 1, 2009.

Judith Sparrow,

Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

[FR Doc. E9-13077 Filed 6-1-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4150-45-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,177,821
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               39,125,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                   682,168
<INVENTORY>                                 26,679,456
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            72,865,692
<PP&E>                                     203,859,370
<DEPRECIATION>                             101,924,974
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             188,231,327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,752,671
<BONDS>                                     62,847,824
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,570,973
<OTHER-SE>                                  80,872,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               188,231,327
<SALES>                                     64,717,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            64,717,803
<CGS>                                       48,392,760
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               48,392,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                28,204
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,192,236
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,068,704
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,651,657
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,417,047
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,417,047
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2676 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2676

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic staple fibers that 
      are not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic staple fibers that 
      are not carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SYNTHETIC STAPLE FIBERS THAT ARE NOT CARDED, COMBED, 
              OR OTHERWISE PROCESSED FOR SPINNING.

    (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:

``     9902.01.00      Acrylic staple      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        fiber composed of                                                  31/2011.......
                        less than 85
                        percent but at
                        least 35 percent
                        by weight of
                        acrylonitrile
                        units, not more
                        than 2 to 3
                        percent water,
                        imported in the
                        form of non-
                        pigmented (ecru)
                        staple crimped
                        product with an
                        average filament
                        decitex of 1.9
                        (plus or minus 10
                        percent), and
                        fiber staple
                        length of 51 mm
                        (plus or minus 10
                        percent)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        5503.30.00)......

    (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>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2945 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2945

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1210 West Main Street in Riverhead, New York, as the ``Private First 
           Class Garfield M. Langhorn Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 21, 2010

Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1210 West Main Street in Riverhead, New York, as the ``Private First 
           Class Garfield M. Langhorn Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. PRIVATE FIRST CLASS GARFIELD M. LANGHORN POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1210 West Main Street in Riverhead, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Private First Class Garfield M. Langhorn Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Private 
First Class Garfield M. Langhorn Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Michael Diederich, Jr., Appellant, v Lorraine Wetzel, Respondent.

[979 NYS2d 605]

In an action to recover fees for legal services rendered, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh II, J.), dated December 9, 2011, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability, upon the defendant’s failure to appear or answer in the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3215 for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability, upon the defendant’s failure to appear or answer in the action, is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for an inquest on the amount of attorney fees, if any, to which the plaintiff is entitled.

On a motion for leave to enter a default judgment under CPLR 3215, a plaintiff must submit proof of service of the summons and the complaint, the facts constituting the claim, and the defendant’s default *(see*CPLR 3215 [f]; *King v King,*99 AD3d 672, 672 [2012]; *C&H Import & Export, Inc. v MNA Global, Inc.,*79 AD3d 784, 785 [2010]). To defeat a motion for leave to enter a default judgment, the defendant must establish a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense to the action *(see Wassertheil v Elburg, LLC,*94 AD3d 753, 753 [2012]; *New Seven Colors Corp. v White Bubble Laundromat, Inc.,*89 AD3d 701, 702 [2011]; *Wells Fargo Bank,*
      *884
      *N.A. v Cervini,*84 AD3d 789, 789 [2011]; *cf.*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Here, the defendant’s excuse for her failure to appear or answer in the action was inadequate *(see Arias v First Presbyt. Church in Jamaica,*100 AD3d 940, 941 [2012]). In light of the defendant’s failure to establish a reasonable excuse for her default, it is unnecessary to determine whether she demonstrated the existence of potentially meritorious defenses to the complaint *(see id.*at 941; *Midfirst Bank v Al-Rahman,*81 AD3d 797, 797 [2011]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a default judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted. Balkin, J.E, Leventhal, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          49,355
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,101
<INVENTORY>                                    113,792
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               270,012
<PP&E>                                         517,249
<DEPRECIATION>                                 267,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 701,196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          111,461
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           284
<OTHER-SE>                                     430,247
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   701,196
<SALES>                                        731,085
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               731,085
<CGS>                                          552,474
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  681,544
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (447)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,978
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,116
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,716
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,716
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96
        

</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00885-CR

Jason William HODGES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 285492

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 21, 2011

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is granted, and this appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### Andrews and others *v.*Creegan.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

March 22, 1881.)

1. Driven Wells—Written Contract—Parol Evidence.

Parol evidence oí a written contract lor driven wells is admissible in a suit i'or infringement.

2. Same—Presumption of Profits—Accounting.

The allegation that the transaction was not profitable would not meet the presumption of profits arising from the putting down of the wells so as to defeat an accounting.

3. Same—Damages—Rev. St. $ 4921.

. Besides, section 4921 of the Revised Statutes provides for an accounting for damages as well as profits, and there might be damages to be accounted for in such a case.—[Ed.

In Equity.

Wheeler, D. J..

This suit is brought for an infringement of a patent owned by the plaintiffs for a driven well. The-answer denies infringement and accountability. No question about the validity of the patent is made. The proofs show that the defendant procured four wells'to be put down, so as-to draw water, for a fixed price, to be paid when the work should be done, and that the work was done to his satisfaction so far that he did pay. The wells put down were driven wells. It is argued that the kind of wells to be put down *478was optional with the workman, and that the defendant is not responsible for the choice the workman made. The evidence does not leave a foundation for this argument, even if it was sound. The workman is the only witness, and he testifies that the contract for putting in the wells was in writing, which he could not read, but which the defendant read as a contract for putting in driven wells. It is further argued that, as the evidence shows the contract was in writing, which is not produced, the parol evidence is not admissible, and that there is no legal evidence as to what the contract was. This argument might be well founded if the suit were upon the contract, but it was not. The question is not what was the contract, but is, what did the defendant procure the workman to do ? What he told the workman to do, or pretended to read from the contract that the workman was to do, if acted upon, would be a sufficient procurement, even if contrary to the contract. The testimony of the workman might be contradicted by the defendant if not true, and, not being contradicted or explained away in any manner, it satisfactorily proves the affirmative of the issue made by the pleadings.

The defendant denies any profits, and insists that none are proved to lay the foundation of an accounting. None are proved beyond the presumption arising from the fact of the putting the well down so that it could be used. This would raise a presumption that there were, or might have been, some profits, and the allegation that the transaction was not profitable would not meet the presumption so as to defeat an accounting. The plaintiff would have the right to., have the account taken, however it might result, left to him. Besides this, the act of 1870 (Rev. St. § 4921) provides for an accounting for damages as well as profits, and there may be damages to be accounted for in this case.

Let there be a decree for an injunction and an account accordingly.
EXHIBIT 99.14

                           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 Amended  Quarterly  Report of Premium  Enterprises,
     Inc. (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  September 30,
     2002 as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date
     hereof (the "Report"). I, Wesley F. Whiting, President, CEO, and CFO of the
     company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
     Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  that to the  best of my
     knowledge and belief.

        (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/Wesley F. Whiting
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Wesley F. Whiting, President/CEO/CFO

Dated:  11/19/02