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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 551

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain other textile printing machinery. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain other textile 

printing machinery.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN OTHER TEXTILE PRINTING MACHIN4 ERY. 

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:

‘‘ 9902.01.93 Textile printing 

machinery (provided for in subheading 

8443.59.10) ....... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2005 ’’. 
2

•HR 551 IH 

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

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mntteb**~tate1l ~ourt**  

# of**~peaI1l** 

# fortbejf 

# eberaI**~trtutt** EDERICK D. TAYLOR, 

### Petitioner, 

### v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

### Respondent.

2013-3001 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. AT0752110754-I-1. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER Ederick 

### D. Taylor moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperIs. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is denied. The docketing fee must be paid within 14 days from the filing ofthis order. Case: 13-3001 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2012EDERICK TAYLOR V. AIR FORCE

s24 FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 2 Case: 13-3001 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2012
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5344 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5344

  To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require a national primary 
               drinking water regulation for perchlorate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 8, 2004

   Ms. Solis (for herself, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Dingell, and Mrs. Capps) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require a national primary 
               drinking water regulation for perchlorate.

    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 ``Safe Drinking Water for Healthy 
Communities Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATION FOR PERCHLORATE.

    Section 1412(b)(12) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-
1(b)(12)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) Perchlorate.--
                            ``(i) Schedule and standard.--
                        Notwithstanding the deadlines set forth in 
                        paragraph (1), the Administrator shall 
                        promulgate a national primary drinking water 
                        regulation for perchlorate pursuant to this 
                        subsection, in accordance with the schedule 
                        established by this subparagraph.
                            ``(ii) Proposed regulations.--Not later 
                        than January 31, 2006, the Administrator shall 
                        propose a national primary drinking water 
                        regulation for percholate.
                            ``(iii) Final regulations.--Not later than 
                        July 31, 2007, after notice and opportunity for 
                        public comment, the Administrator shall 
                        promulgate a national primary drinking water 
                        regulation for perchlorate.''.
                                 <all>
```
# State and Area Employment, Hours, and Earnings Latest Numbers

Latest Numbers for State and Area Employment, Hours, and Earnings, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

- State and Area Employment, Hours, and Earnings Latest Numbers All States Diffusion Index, 1-month, total nonfarm					86.3(p)  in Mar 2024					Historical Data								           All MSAs Diffusion Index, 1-month, total nonfarm					74.3(p)  in Mar 2024					Historical Data																p- preliminary
# Producer Price Index

"The Producer Price Indexes (PPI) news release presents measures of average price change over time in the selling prices received by domestic producers of goods and services.  The output of all industries in the goods-producing sector of the economy¿agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, and manufacturing¿are included in the PPI. Service sector coverage is expanding.  This release is issued monthly. For more information, visit the Producer Price Indexes home page at www.bls.gov/ppi/. "

- PPI for final demand rises 0.5% in April; services increase 0.6%, goods advance 0.4%
- PPI for final demand rises 0.2% in March; services increase 0.3%, goods decline 0.1%
- PPI for final demand rises 0.6% in February; goods increase 1.2%, services advance 0.3%
- PPI for final demand rises 0.3% in January; services increase 0.6%, goods decrease 0.2%
- PPI for final demand falls 0.1% in December; goods decrease 0.4%, services unchanged
- PPI for final demand unchanged in November; goods and services also unchanged
- PPI for final demand declines 0.5% in October; goods fall 1.4%, services unchanged
- PPI for final demand advances 0.5% in September; goods rise 0.9%, services increase 0.3%
- PPI for final demand advances 0.7% in August; goods rise 2.0%, services increase 0.2%
- PPI for final demand advances 0.3% in July; services rise 0.5%, goods increase 0.1%
- PPI for final demand advances 0.1% in June; services rise 0.2%, goods unchanged
- PPI for final demand declines 0.3% in May; goods fall 1.6%, services increase 0.2%
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
the Annual Report on Form Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 of
Franklin Towers Enterprises Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





(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/
      Dingliang Kuang





Dingliang
Kuang


Chief
Executive Officer


Chief
Financial Officer




May 20,
2009




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Franklin Towers Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Franklin Towers
Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 4346** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DERRICK LEON SAMUELS , Defendant

- Appellant , Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:08

- cr - 00183

- RBH

- 1 )

Submitted : June 22, 2010 Decided: July 8, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion
. Russell W. Mace III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bindi ng precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Derrick Leon Samuels pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition, a violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and 924(e) (2006) . The district court enhanced Samuels’s sentence under the Arm ed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), after determining that Samuels had three prior convictions for violent felonies. On appeal, Samuels contends that the district court erred in counting his 1994 conviction under South Carolina la w for failure to stop for a blue light as a violent felony.
In United States v. Roseboro , 551 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2009), we held that a conviction under South Carolina law for failure to stop for a blue light, S.C. Code Ann. § 56

- 5

- 750(A), constituted a crime of violence under the ACCA only in some circumstances, namely, intentional violations of the statute. Id. at 240. The district court, acting only with the benefit of that decision, d etermined that Samuels’s conviction un der the statute was intenti onal because “the indictment does indicate the word willfully,” which the district court felt “equate[d] to intentional conduct.” Accordingly, the district court concluded that Samuels’s conviction counted as an ACCA predicate offense. We recently held, however, that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Chambers v. United States , U.S. , 129 S.Ct. 687 (2009), which was issued eight days after3 Roseboro , “ a viol ation of South Carolina’s blue light statute
.

. . does not qualify as a predicate offense for purposes of the
ACCA .” United States v. Rivers , 595 F.3d 558, 560 (4th Cir. 2010)
. Accordingly, the district court erred in counting Samuels’s conviction for failure to stop for a blue light as a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA. We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court and remand the case for resentencing consistent with our decision in Rivers
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

co urt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0620

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

STEVEN JAMES CLIFTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 24, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 7 2022

09/07/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0620
|EXHIBIT 12.1                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|                                                                       
|I, Richard Colker, certify that:                                       
|                                                                       
|1.                                                                     
|                                                                       
|2.                                                                     
|                                                                       
|3.                                                                     
|                                                                       
|4.                                                                     
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|5.                                                                     
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Date: June 28, 2005                                                    

| | /s/ Richard Colker                    
| | --------------------------------------
| |                                       
| | Richard Colker
Chief Executive Officer

|
|
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1463

_____________________________

KEVIN B. KASPER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal—Original Jurisdiction.

June 28, 2019

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

RAY, BILBREY, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Kevin B. Kasper, pro se, Petitioner.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
ME1 12409917v.1

John E. Flaherty

Partner 

T. 973.639.7903 

F. 973.297.3971 

jflaherty@mccarter.com 

McCarter & English, LLP 

Four Gateway Center 

100 Mulberry Street 

Newark, NJ 07102-4056 

T. 973.622.4444 

F. 973.624.7070 

www.mccarter.com 

BOSTON

HARTFORD 

NEW YORK 

NEWARK 

PHILADELPHIA 

STAMFORD 

WILMINGTON 

October 19, 2011

VIA ECF AND HAND DELIVERY 

Honorable Joel A. Pisano, U.S.D.J 

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey 

Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse 

402 East State Street 

Trenton, New Jersey 08608 

Re: AstraZeneca AB, et al. v. Hanmi USA, Inc., et al.

 Civil Action No. 11-cv-0760 (JAP)(TJB) 

Dear Judge Pisano: 

We represent Plaintiffs in this matter, and write concerning Defendants’ five 

summary judgment motions filed on October 11. D.I. 97–117. We have copied 

Magistrate Judge Bongiovanni on this letter. 

Defendants’ motions are premature, and we believe it would be prudent to adjourn 

them until the completion of relevant discovery. These motions also raise claim 

construction issues that we believe would be best addressed during the ongoing 

Markman process. 

We respectfully request a conference with Your Honor or Magistrate Judge 

Bongiovanni in order to discuss these issues and to arrive at a suitable schedule for 

the disposition of Defendants’ motions. 

Counsel for Plaintiffs are available for a conference on these issues at the Court’s 

convenience. 

Respectfully, 

s/John E. Flaherty 

John E. Flaherty 

cc: Hon. Tonianne J. Bongiovanni (via ECF and email) 

 Counsel of record (via email) 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 120 Filed 10/19/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 4130
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01


                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-110160, 333-101174 and 333-64228 and Form S-8 Nos. 333-
69552, 333-55886 and 333-55884) of AtheroGenics, Inc. of our report dated
February 10, 2004, with respect to the financial statements of AtheroGenics,
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2003.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 12, 2004
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 29, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00414

- CV

Whitney BREWSTER , In her capacity as executive director of The Texas Department of Motor

Ve hicles,

Appellant

v.

Drew ROICKI and Richard Roicki As Successors in Interest to Pinnacle Motors,

Appellee s

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 06565

Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee's second motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time

is extended to October 30, 2014.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

cou rt on this 29th day of October, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
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

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NCI Epidemiology, Prevention Control & Population Sciences P01.                    

*Date:*                         October 14-15, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Executive Meeting C, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Wlodek Lopaczynski, MD, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Research Programs Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive Blvd. Room 8131, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-1402,                         *lopacw@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 34765)    
Dated: July 10, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-17053 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
EXHIBIT 10.6

                                     [LOGO]

May 4, 2005

To: JRT Associates

From: Paul S. Lipschutz


      RE: Consulting Agreement

This letter is an addendum to our agreement dated October 10,2004.

Collectible  Concepts  Group,  Inc.  hereby  agrees that because of the services
provided by Mr.  Theismann in attaining  the NFL license for CCGI,  we will also
pay 5% (five percent) of sales(as  defined by the previous  agreement and on the
terms of the previous agreement) for Arena Football sales made by CCGI.

Additionally,  we will issue options for an additional 3 million  shares at .003
(3 mills) good for 3 years from the date of this addendum.

/s/ Paul S. Lipschutz
---------------------
President
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3534

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska John K. Hulit, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 27, 2005 Filed: August 19, 2005

___________ Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. John Hulit appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for the District of Nebraska upon his guilty plea to possessing with intent to distribute less than 50 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). The district court sentenced Hulit to 57 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. For reversal, Hulit argues that the federal Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional after Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). For the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand.-2- The district court erred in sentencing Hulit under a mandatory Guidelines regime, see United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005) (holding Guidelines to be only advisory), and Hulit preserved this question at sentencing. We thus review for harmless error. See id. at 769. We are left with “grave doubt” as to whether the error was harmless: Hulit was sentenced at the bottom of the Guidelines range, see United States v. Haidley , 400 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding not harmless district court’s error in imposing sentence under mandatory regime where court sentenced defendant to bottom of Guidelines range, even if no Sixth Amendment issue was present), and the court suggested that Hulit’s sentence would have been lower if the Guidelines did not apply. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing.

______________________________