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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 562

To suspend temporarily the duty on thermal release plastic film. 

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 thermal release plastic 

film.

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

3 SECTION 1. THERMAL RELEASE PLASTIC FILM. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 
2

•HR 562 IH 

‘‘ 9902.39.19 Thermal release 

plastic film (with 

a substrate of 

polyolefin-based: 

PET/conductive 

acrylic polymer; 

release liner of 

polyethylene 

terephthalate; 

PET/

polysiloxane; 

pressure sensitive 

adhesive of acrylic ester-based copolymer; and 

core of acrylonitrile-butadienestyrene copolymer) (provided 

for in subheading 

3919.10.20) ....... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2004 ’’. 

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3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 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
#### BAKER v. YELLOW CAB CO. OF MISSOURI.

No. 6887.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Aug. 31, 1951.

*85Terte, Levi, Rosenwald, Wasserstrom & Levitt, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Rogers, Field & Gentry, Kansas City, Mo., for'defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The complaint alleges that Allan H. Baker, while walking on the streets of Kansas City, Missouri, was struck by one' of the defendant’s taxicabs and received injuries from which he died. Plaintiff has propounded interrogatories to the defendant requesting- names and addresses of witnesses to the accident and names and addresses of any persons who examined the defendant’s taxicab subsequent to the accident. These interrogatories are objected to for the. reason that they “call for hearsay, conclusions and constitute an attempt of the plaintiff to invade the investigative file of this defendant, and said interrogatory does not call for material arid relevant ¡matters.” Interrogatory No. 23 asks for the name and address of any person who examined the vehicle on behalf. of the manufacturer thereof, and is further objected to because it “calls for information which is hearsay and not ¡binding on this defendant and calls for information obviously not within the direct knowledge or control of this defendant.”

1. The scope of examination under Rule 33, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., is the same as that set out under Rule 26(b). As amended on December 27, 1946, effective March 19, ,1948s, 26(b) includes the following language: “* * * It is not ground for objection that the testimony will be inadmissible at the trial if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

In Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, loc. cit. 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 392, 91 L.Ed. 451, the court said: “ * * * either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession.”

2. .It is not contemplated that defendant or its attorneys should reveal .the results of their investigations or any opinions or conclusions they may have reached. Neither is a party required to answer interrogatories calling for speculation. These interrogatories merely ask for names and addresses of persons who are known to th( defendant, and plaintiff is entitled to th information. Pacific Intermountain Express Co. v. Union Pacific R. Co., D.C., 10 F.R.D. 61; Shank v. Associated Transport Inc., et al., D.C., 10 F.R.D. 472.

Accordingly defendant’s objections should be overruled and it will be so ordered.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PATRICK DELACRUZ MORENO,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00028

- CR

Appeal from the

112th Judicial District Court

of Pecos County, Texas

(TC# 3156)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
                                   Exhibit 11
                                 ADE CORPORATION
             Statement Regarding Computation of Net Income Per Share
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                                   Three months ended              Six months ended
                                                                       October 31,                     October 31,
                                                                --------------------------       ---------------------
                                                                     1997         1996               1997         1996
                                                                     ----         ----               ----         ----
                                                                        (unaudited)                     (unaudited)
<S>                                                                <C>            <C>              <C>          <C> 
Net income                                                             $630          $3,117        $4,513       $5,665
                                                                       ====          ======        ======       ======

Weighted average common and 
 common equivalent shares outstanding:

   a. Shares attributable to common stock outstanding                10,838           8,450         9,728        8,447

   b. Shares attributable to common stock options
        pursuant to APB 15                                              478             322           492          371
                                                                        ---             ---           ---          ---

Shares used in computation                                           11,316           8,772        10,220        8,818
                                                                     ======           =====        ======        =====

Net income per share                                                  $0.06           $0.36         $0.44        $0.64
                                                                     ======           =====        ======        =====
</TABLE> 

                                       17
Exhibit 23.1 

 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNo. 333-43618 of Large Scale Biology Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated January 23, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Large Scale Biology Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2002 (which expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Corporation’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets”). 

 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Deloitte & Touche LLP 

March 28, 2003****
<PAGE>




                                                                   Exhibit 99.1


                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 Amended Annual Report of Impreso, Inc. (the "Company"),
on Form 10-K /A for the period ending August 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Marshall D. Sorokwasz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.

Date:    April 2, 2003                 Signature: /s/ Marshall D. Sorokwasz
         -------------                            -------------------------
                                                  Marshall D. Sorokwasz
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 128 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 128

     Congratulating Tony Stewart for winning the 2002 Winston Cup 
                             Championship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2003

Mr. Hill (for himself, Mr. Pence, Mr. Visclosky, Ms. Carson of Indiana, 
 Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Chocola, and Mr. Hostettler) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Congratulating Tony Stewart for winning the 2002 Winston Cup 
                             Championship.

Whereas Tony Stewart won NASCAR's Winston Cup Championship in 2002;
Whereas Stewart finished with a remarkable 4,800 points, the most of any driver 
        in the 2002 NASCAR series;
Whereas Stewart also won the MBNA America 500, the Pontiac Excitement 400, and 
        the Sirius Satellite Radio 400 races;
Whereas Stewart rallied from a 43rd place finish in the Daytona 500 and still 
        won the Winston Cup Championship;
Whereas Stewart completed 95.1 percent of laps in the 2002 Winston Cup 
        Championship;
Whereas Stewart accomplished this feat in only his 3rd year in the NASCAR 
        circuit; and
Whereas Stewart, who excelled at racing beginning at a very young age, was born 
        in Columbus, Indiana, and continues to have close ties with the State of 
        Indiana and the City of Columbus: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives congratulates Tony 
Stewart for winning the 2002 Winston Cup Championship.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Seaway Valley Capital Corporation (the "Company") certifies that:
  1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarter ended March 31, 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.
 
 /S/
THOMAS SCOZZAFAVATHOMAS SCOZZAFAVAChief Executive Officerand Chief Financial OfficerDate:

September 1, 2009
 
 
  This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
 
  20
#### PACIFIC ASIAN ENTERPRISES, a California corporation; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CROSS CHARTERING NV, a foreign limited liability company; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-55805.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 2012.

Filed Dec. 19, 2012.

Stanley L. Gibson, Joshua A. Southwick, Gibson Robb & Lindh, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Alan Nakazawa, Cogswell, Nakazawa & Chang, LLP, Long Beach, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

James J. McMullen, Jr., Esquire, Gordon & Rees LLP, San Diego, CA, for Co-Defendants-Appellees.

Before: WARDLAW, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Pacific Asian Enterprises (“PAE”) appeals the district court’s final order dismissing PAE’s claims and enforcing a contractual forum selection clause pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it enforced the forum selection clause. *See Kukje Hwajae Ins.Co., Ltd. v. M/V Hyundai Liberty,*408 F.3d 1250, 1254 (9th Cir.2005). It is clear from the face of the bill of lading that the parties intended that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30701, (“COGSA”) control this contract. Both parties’ experts testified that COGSA controls the terms of the contract in Antwerp; Cross Chartering has stipulated that COG-SA controls in Antwerp; and the district court reached the same conclusion. Given that the court in Antwerp will interpret the contract under COGSA, we conclude that the substantive law the Belgium courts will apply will not be less favorable to PAE than the U.S. court’s application of COGSA. *Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. M.V. DSR Atl.,*131 F.3d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting *Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer,*515 U.S. 528, 538, 115 S.Ct. 2322, 132 L.Ed.2d 462 (1995)) (holding that enforcement of a forum selection clause is unreasonable when “the substantive law to be applied will *670reduce the carrier’s obligations to the cargo owner below what COGSA guarantees”).

Affirmed.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/26/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

GENE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

vs.

R. MICHAEL CODY; PHIL GILSTRAP,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-6003

(D.C. No. CIV-95-188-A)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Taylor, an inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from a grant

of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Mr. Taylor contends that prison officials

violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by refusing to deliver white

supremacist literature to him. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment

de novo. Wolf v. Prudential Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 793, 796 (10th Cir. 1996). Prisons may
- 2 -

regulate incoming literature to prisoners if such regulations are “reasonably related to

legitimate penological interests.” Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989)

(quoting Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). The district court held that the

regulations in question were valid both facially and as applied. Considering the violent

and hateful content of the literature, the court found that Defendant’s refusal to allow

Plaintiff access to the literature was reasonably related to a legitimate penological

interest, namely the maintenance of a safe and orderly prison. We agree. 

As to Mr. Taylor’s claim of due process violation, the availability of procedures

for appealing the decision to withhold his mail satisfies due process. See Procunier v.

Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 417-19 (1974), partially overruled on other grounds, Thornburgh

v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989). 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10700 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
SHAWN SCOTT BANTA , Defendant

- Appellant

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

- CR

- 35

- 1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Shawn Scott Banta 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).
Banta h a s not filed a response.
We have reviewed counsel’s bri ef and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* 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 se t forth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED June 23, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10700 Document: 00513561873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2016No. 15

- 10700

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review , including counsel’s
conclusion that the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we th erefore
decline to consider such a claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We also note that , contrary to counsel’s assertion, there is no clerical error in the district court’ s S tatement of R easons (SOR)

. The SOR correctly reflects that the sentence was within the guideline range and that the difference between the maximum and minimum of the guideline ra nge d oes not exceed 24 months. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-10700 Document: 00513561873 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 59 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 59

To amend the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 to permit States to 
   use administrative funds to pay costs relating to the processing, 
   transporting, and distributing to eligible recipient agencies of 
                           donated wild game.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2003

  Mr. Ehlers introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 to permit States to 
   use administrative funds to pay costs relating to the processing, 
   transporting, and distributing to eligible recipient agencies of 
                           donated wild game.

    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 ``Hunters Help the Hungry Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. USE OF ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS FOR DONATED WILD GAME.

    Section 204(a)(1) of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 
U.S.C. 7508(a)(1)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting after 
``sources,'' the following: ``including donated wild game (using not 
more than a percentage established by the Secretary (by regulation) of 
funds appropriated for a fiscal year) and''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32.1








Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


(Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)








In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stratus Properties Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), William H.
Armstrong III, as Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his
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.





Dated:  August
11, 2008








/s/
William H. Armstrong III


William
H. Armstrong III


Chairman
of the Board, President and


Chief
Executive Officer








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.





This
certification shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.