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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3403 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3403

   To amend the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 to exempt 
   subsistence users in the State of Alaska from the prohibition on 
                                taking.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2010

  Ms. Murkowski (for herself and Mr. Begich) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 to exempt 
   subsistence users in the State of Alaska from the prohibition on 
                                taking.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR SUBSISTENCE USERS.

    Section 3(h)(2) of the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 
(16 U.S.C. 712(1)) is amended by adding at the end: ``A taking 
authorized under this section shall be exempt from the prohibition on 
taking under section 1 of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 
Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718a).''
                                 <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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60630

AZTEC GENERAL AGENCY,

Petitioner,

versus

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION, In Its Corporate Capacity,

Respondent.

Petition for Review: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(12 USC 1821 (f) (4))

September 4, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

ENFORCED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.
SEP 2 6 2000 

Raymond G. Stoken 

President, Cory Consultants, Inc. 

358 Main Street 

P.O. Box W 

North Hundington, PA 15642 

Dear Mr. Stoken: 

This responds to a report forwarded to the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) 

by Congressman John P. Murtha. In this report, you sought to have the "Play Pull-Tab" 

machine recognized by the NGIC as a Class II device. We cannot do so. 

As noted in the report, you attempted, without success, to receive a designation by this 

office that your proposed game constitutes a Class II rather than a Class III game under 

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). On July 22, 1996, December 1 I, 1997, and 

November 2,2000, we issued advisory opinions to you which concluded that Play PullTab is a Class Ill game. Since your report reflects that the description of the game 

(written "about a year" before the report was sent on April 29,2000) predates the most 

recent advisory opinion (November 2, 1999), it appears this version of the machine has 

already been considered by the NIGC. 

Finally, we are not persuaded by the distinctions drawn in your analysis between the Play 

Pull-Tab machine and the Clapper machine (also known as Lucky Tab II). Both 

machines are pull-tab video machines that deliver and play the pull-tab. Therefore, our 

earlier conclusions have not changed. Play Pull-Tab is a Class III game. 

Please note that under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and its implementing 

regulations, the advisory opinions are at the discretion of the NIGC and not subject to 

appeal. The NIGC has proposed procedures, however, to establish a more formal 

adjudicatory process resulting in NIGC decisions that would be subject to appeal. You 

may wish to resubmit the subject machine for a classification decision if and when these 

procedures have been implemented. 

Please feel free to contact Shawn Shaha at (202) 632-7003 if you have any questions. 

Penny J. olem man 

Deputy General Counsel 

1441 L STREET, N.W. 9TH FLOOR WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 EL: 202-632-7003 FAX: 202-632-7066
Exhibit 12

                  ARISTAR, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

        COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                           (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
                                     Year Ended December 31,               
<S>                           <C>          <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>   
(Dollars in thousands)              1996        1995        1994       1993        1992

Income from operations before
 income taxes and, in 1992,
 cumulative effect of a change
 in accounting principle      $   99,518   $ 107,741   $ 101,311   $ 91,523    $ 88,440

Fixed charges:
 Interest and debt
 expense on all
 indebtedness                    120,758     114,917     102,224     98,600     103,425

Appropriate portion
 of rentals (33%)                  3,292       3,359       3,020      3,276       2,739

Total fixed charges              124,050     118,276     105,244    101,876     106,164

Earnings available for
 fixed charges                $  223,568   $ 226,017    $206,555   $193,399    $194,604

Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges                      1.80        1.91        1.96       1.90        1.83

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

We, Lei Gu, Chief Executive Officer and Anthony K. Chan, Chief Financial Officer, of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of our
knowledge:

1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: November 16, 2009

/s/ Lei Gu            
Lei Gu
Chief Executive Officer
and/s/ Anthony K. Chan
Anthony K. Chan
Chief Financial Officer

The material contained in Exhibit 32.0 is not deemed "filed" with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective
of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-10-00147- CV Carolyn Barnes, Appellan t

v. University F ederal Cr edit Union an d Gove rnm ent Em ployees Insu rance C om pany/ GEICO Insurance, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 201 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-0 5-0 0301 0, H ONO RAB LE GUS J. STRAUSS, JR., J UDGE P RESIDING

S U P P L E M E N T A L O P I N I O N
In response to our opinion issued in this appea l on April 18, 2013, University Fe dera l Credit Union (UF CU) has filed w ith the district court a re mitti tur reduc ing its awa rd of attorney s’ fee s for this appeal to $15,000. In acc ordanc e with our prior opinion, we ref orm the district court’s judgme nt to awa

rd UFCU $15,000 in attorney s’ fee s for this appeal i n s t ea d o f $ 2 5,000. In our opinion issued on April 8, 2013, we overr uled appellant Caroly

n Ba rnes’ s rem ai ning issues on appea l. Accor dingly , we a ffirm, a s ref ormed he rein, the tria l court’s judgment.

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field Reforme d and, as Ref

ormed, Af

firmed Filed: Jul y

2, 2013
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

In connection with the Annual Report of Arabian American Development Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Nicholas Carter, Treasurer 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:

      (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/ NICHOLAS CARTER
--------------------------
Nicholas Carter, Treasurer

April 8, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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 10.18 


 


Cost Assignment Agreement


 


THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of 1st day of January 2020 between


 


Global Engine Limited, (the “Party A”),
having its place of business at Room A, 8/F, Reason Group Tower, 403 Castle Peak Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories, Hong Kong;


 


and


 


Boxasone Limited, (the “Party B”),
having its place of business at Room A, 8/F, Reason Group Tower, 403 Castle Peak Road, Kwai Chung, New Territories, Hong Kong.


 


The parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	Party A shall share the portion of salaries expenses paid by Party B in relation to the general work allocation
of the staff, in accordance with the estimated workload of staff used by Party A, for staff as listed below, starting from 1 January 2020
until termination by either party with one month’s written notice



 


Ip Ka Pui (1/4 of the consultancy fee)


 


Tse Kwok Ching (1/4 of the consultancy fee)


 


Samantha Foong (50% of the salary)


 


		2.	Any amendments for the Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties hereto.



 


		3.	This Agreement shall be construed under and governed by the Laws of Hong Kong.



 


	Global Engine Limited	 	Boxasone Limited
	 	 	 
	By: 	 	 	By: 	 
	Lee Yat Lung Andrew	 	Lee Yat Lung Andrew
	Director	 	Director
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
                                                                      ----------

                                 AMETEK, Inc.
     Statement Regarding Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                            (Dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Year Ended December 31,
                                                 ----------------------------------------------------------
EARNINGS:                                          1992        1993          1994        1995        1996
                                                 ---------   ---------    ---------   ---------   ---------
<S>                                              <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>         <C>
   Income from continuing operations              $42,777     ($8,089)     $36,619     $43,757     $51,190
   Income tax expense (benefit)                    21,352      (4,472)      21,144      25,500      27,470
   Interest expense - gross                        20,197      18,580       22,295      20,317      19,670
   Capitalized interest                              (476)       (977)        (677)       (142)       (599)
   Amortization of debt financing costs               196         173        1,385       1,221         136
   Interest portion of rental expense(1)            1,210       1,467        1,466       1,633       2,097
                                                 ---------   ---------    ---------   ---------   ---------
      Adjusted earnings                           $85,256      $6,682      $82,232     $92,286     $99,964
                                                 =========   =========    =========   =========   =========


FIXED CHARGES:
   Interest expense, net of capitalized interest  $19,721     $17,603      $21,618     $20,175     $19,071
   Capitalized interest                               476         977          677         142         599
   Amortization of debt financing costs               196         173        1,385       1,221         136
   Interest portion of rental expense(1)            1,210       1,467        1,466       1,633       2,097
                                                 --------    --------     --------    --------    --------
      Fixed charges                               $21,603     $20,220      $25,146     $23,171     $21,903
                                                 ========    ========     ========    ========    ========

   RATIO OF ADJUSTED EARNINGS TO
                                                 --------    --------     --------    --------    --------
       FIXED CHARGES                                 3.9x         -   (2)     3.3x        4.0x        4.6x
                                                 ========    ========     ========    ========    ========
</TABLE>

______________________________

(1)  Estimated to be 1/3 of total rent expense.
(2)  Earnings from continuing operations in 1993 were insufficient to cover
     fixed charges by approximately $13.5 million.
#### William Corsello et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Verizon New York, Inc., Formerly Known as New York Telephone Company, et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Submitted May 14, 2012;

decided June 27, 2012

Motion for reargument denied *[see*18 NY3d 777 (2012)].
#### Louis A. Terminello et al., Appellants, v Village of Piermont, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Submitted March 26, 2012;

decided June 7, 2012

Motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed, with $400 costs and $100 costs of motion, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### Epitacio ARVIZO-PENA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Antonio MEDELLIN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-10533

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2006.

Epitacio Arvizo-Pena, Big Spring, TX, pro se.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Epitacio Arvizo-Pena, federal inmate # 11624-051, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his 2002 conviction and sentence for illegal reentry following deportation. He contends that his sentence is illegal in light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Arvizo-Pena’s *Booker*claim was not properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. *See Padilla v. United States,*416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir.2005).

Arvizo-Pena has waived appeal of any ineffective-assistance claims by failing to brief them here. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Certification  Pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United States Code),  each of
the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to the best of such officer's  knowledge and
belief, that:

(1)  The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the
     "Form 10-Q") of the Company 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  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all
     materials  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
     the Company.



Dated:  August 13, 2004                       /s/ Frank B. Manning
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Frank B. Manning
                                            Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

Certification  Pursuant  to  Section  906 of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United States Code),  each of
the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"),  does hereby  certify,  to the best of such officer's  knowledge and
belief, that:

(1)  The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the
     "Form 10-Q") of the Company 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  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all
     materials  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
     the Company.

Dated:  August 13, 2004                       /s/ Robert A. Crist
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Robert A. Crist
                                            Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LAURANCE KRIEGEL,

Appellant,

v.

SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC

SERVICE COMPANY AND XCEL

ENERGY,

Appellees. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00115

- CV

Appeal from the

State Office of

Administrative Hearings

(SOAH Docket No. 473

- 19

- 1644

PUC Docket No. 48973)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We

further order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be certified below for

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019.

GINA M. P ALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
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 of Arabian American Development Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nicholas Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; 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/ Nicholas Carter
  Nicholas Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer
  March 18, 2011
  
  
  
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,802]


UGN, Inc., Jackson, TN; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 15, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed on behalf of workers of UGN, Inc., Jackson, Tennessee.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13904 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alicia LOZOYA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41702.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 20, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alicia Lozoya-Torres (Lozoya) appeals the 46-month sentence she received following her guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. She argues that the district court erred in sentencing her under the mandatory version of the Sentencing Guidelines, that the sentencing provisions in § 1326 are unconstitutional, and that the district court erred by ordering her to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a condition of supervised release.

The Government urges that Lozoya’s challenge to her sentence imposed under a mandatory version of the guidelines is barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision in her plea agreement. Lozoya counters that the appeal-waiver provision is invalid because her plea agreement was accepted before the issuance of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). This court has recently rejected that precise argument. *United States v. Burns,*433 F.3d 442, 450-51 (5th Cir.2005). The appeal-waiver provision is enforceable and bars her complaint that she was sentenced under the formerly mandatory guidelines scheme.

Lozoya’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Lozoya contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. *449-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Lozoya properly concedes that her argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but she raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Lozoya’s challenge to the special condition of supervised release that she cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample, even if not barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision, is not ripe for review on direct appeal. *See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu,*428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). That claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. *See id.*at 1102.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.

*

 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.