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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2998 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2998

 To amend title 46, United States Code, to prohibit the delegation by 
the United States of inspection, certification, and related services to 
 a foreign classification society that provides comparable services to 
    Iran, North Korea, North Sudan, or Syria and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 21, 2011

Mr. McCaul (for himself, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. 
    Bilirakis, Mr. King of New York, and Mr. Olson) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 46, United States Code, to prohibit the delegation by 
the United States of inspection, certification, and related services to 
 a foreign classification society that provides comparable services to 
    Iran, North Korea, North Sudan, or Syria and for other purposes.

    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 ``Ethical Shipping Inspections Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON DELEGATION OF INSPECTION, CERTIFICATION, AND 
              RELATED SERVICES.

    Section 3316 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) The Secretary may not make a delegation, and shall revoke an 
existing delegation made, to a foreign classification society pursuant 
to subsection (b) or (d) to provide inspection, certification, or 
related services if the Secretary of State determines that the foreign 
classification society provides comparable services--
            ``(1) in Iran, North Korea, North Sudan, or Syria; or
            ``(2) for the government of Iran, North Korea, North Sudan, 
        or Syria.''.
                                 <all>
```
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Majority and Dissenting 

Memorandum Opinions filed February 25, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-20-00767-CV

IN RE CESAR LENAY URBINA, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1100739

MAJORITY MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 10, 2020, relator Cesar Lenay Urbina filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable George 

Barnstone, presiding judge of County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County, to 

set aside his (1) December 17, 2019 order granting real party in interest’s motion for 
2

a turnover order; and (2) September 16, 2020 order denying relator’s motion to 

modify the turnover order.

Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j) (“The person filing the petition must certify 

that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement 

in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or 

record.”). 

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to 

refiling.

/s/ Ken Wise

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Bourliot. (Bourliot, J., dissenting).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2585 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2585

To delay any presumption of death in connection with the kidnapping in 
 Iraq or Afghanistan of a retired member of the Armed Forces to ensure 
           the continued payment of the member's retired pay.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2009

   Mr. Broun of Georgia (for himself and Mr. Filner) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To delay any presumption of death in connection with the kidnapping in 
 Iraq or Afghanistan of a retired member of the Armed Forces to ensure 
           the continued payment of the member's retired pay.

    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 ``PROTECT Act'' or ``Protecting the 
Retirement of Our Troops by Ensuring Compensation is Timely Act''.

SEC. 2. PRESUMPTION OF DEATH FOR PARTICIPANTS IN SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN 
              IN MISSING STATUS.

    (a) Conditions on Presumption.--In the case of a participant in the 
Survivor Benefit Plan who has been determined by the Secretary of State 
to have been kidnapped in Iraq or Afghanistan on or after October 7, 
2001, the Secretary of a military department may not make a 
determination under section 1450(l) of title 10, United States Code, 
that the participant is missing, with the presumption of death, until 
the earlier of--
            (1) a period of at least 7 years expires after the date of 
        the determination of the Secretary of State; or
            (2) the date on which the participant is confirmed dead and 
        a death certificate is delivered to the next of kin of the 
        participant.
    (b) Resumption of Retired Pay; Payment of Back Pay.--In the case of 
a participant in the Survivor Benefit Plan described in subsection (a) 
who was presumed to be dead before the date of the enactment of this 
Act under section 1450(l) of title 10, United States Code, the 
Secretary of a military department concerned shall--
            (1) resume payment of any retired pay to which the 
        participant is entitled to as a retired member of the Armed 
        Forces pending satisfaction of the conditions specified in 
        subsection (a); and
            (2) pay retired pay for periods occurring before the date 
        of the enactment of this Act for which retired pay was not paid 
        because of the presumption of death.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8) pertaining to (i) the Amended and Restated 1996 Equity Participation
Plan of Varco International, Inc. (No. 333-38064), (ii) the D.O.S. Ltd. 1993
Stock Option Plan (No. 333-05237), (iii) the Tuboscope Vetco International Inc.
401(k) Thrift Savings Plan (No. 333-43385), (iv) the Tuboscope Inc. Employee
Qualified Stock Purchase Plan (No. 333-56039) (v) the Tuboscope Inc. Deferred
Compensation Plan (No. 333-56041) and (v) the Varco 1980 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, the Varco International, Inc. 1990 Stock Option Plan and the Varco
International, Inc. 1994 Directors' Stock Option Plan (No. 333-38066) of Varco
International, Inc. of our report dated January 26, 2001 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedules of Varco International, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                                    ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 8, 2001
Exhibit 32.2


                  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
                  --------------------------------------------


In connection with this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Intellectual Technology,
Inc. (the  "Company")  for the period ended  December 31, 2003, I, M.  Catherine
Wright, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   This Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 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 this Form 10-KSB for the period ended December
31, 2003 fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Date:  April 14, 2004

                                           By:  /s/ Craig Litchin
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Craig Litchin
                                              President, Chief Operating Officer
                                              and Principal Financial Officer
Order filed October 1, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00347-CV

____________

JOSHUA MAXIMILLIAN MURRAY, Appellant

V.

SAVOY MANOR, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1130062

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due September 19, 2019. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or 

before October 21, 2019, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Christopher, Spain, and Poissant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARY A. NELSON ROGERS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE 

SERVICE; CHARLES P. RETTING, IRS 

Commissioner, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

PAUL J. ENJALRAN, IRS Officer, Area 

#6; et al., 

Defendants.

No. 20-17294 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01564-TLN-CKD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-17294 

Mary A. Nelson Rogers appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in 

her action challenging Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) tax collection efforts. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s 

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). Davidson v. 

Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rogers’s action because Rogers failed 

to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state 

a plausible claim for relief); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 

(9th Cir. 2004) (a party’s conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of fact, 

or unreasonable inferences need not be accepted as true). To the extent Rogers 

sought injunctive and equitable relief, such relief is barred by the Anti-Injunction 

Act (the “Act”), which prohibits any attempt to restrain the IRS’s tax assessment 

and collection activities, with limited exceptions that do not apply here. See 26 

U.S.C. § 7421(a) (listing statutory exceptions to the Act); Elias v. Connett, 908 

F.2d 521, 523, 525 (9th Cir. 1990) (setting forth limited judicial exception to the 

Act).

We reject as meritless Rogers’s contention that her due process rights were 

violated.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 
3 20-17294 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not 

consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 

F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US $
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         27,922
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  58,944
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    3,403
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               98,078
<PP&E>                                         910,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 261,502
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 879,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          88,910
<BONDS>                                        372,073
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    10
<COMMON>                                       315
<OTHER-SE>                                     294,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   879,459
<SALES>                                        206,982
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               292,414
<CGS>                                          136,601
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  154,081
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               19,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             24,179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                74,701
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,346
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            62,950
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   62,950
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.72
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit      21.1**

**List      of Subsidiaries of the Company **

| **Name**                                                                        | **Place                of Incorporation**       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                            |                                            |
| Beijing                Asia Hongzhi Advertising Co., Ltd.                       | People’s                Republic of China |
|                                                                            |                                            |
| Beijing                Hongzhi Century Advertising Co., Ltd                     | People’s                Republic of China |
|                                                                            |                                            |
| Shandong                Hongzhi Communications and Career Advertising Co., Ltd. | People’s                Republic of China |
|                                                                            |                                            |
| Tibet                Asia Culture Media Co., Ltd.                               | People’s                Republic of China |
|                                                                            |                                            |
| Beijing                Asia Qiangshi Media Advertising Co., Ltd.                | People’s                Republic of China |
|                                                                            |                                            |
| Tibet                Hongzhi Advertising Co., Ltd.                              | People’s                Republic of China |
EXHIBIT 32



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 W-Waves USA, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michel Bourbonnais, President and Principal Executive Officer, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  July 23, 2004

By: /s/ Michel Bourbonnais

Name: Michel Bourbonnais

Title:   President (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Hammerschlag *v.*Garrett and others.*

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.*

July 1, 1881.)

1. Patent — Uniformity of Decision — Weight to be Given to Previous Decision in Other Circuit.

A proper regard for uniformity of decision requires that where ono circuit court has, after a full discussion of the evidence, sustained a patent, another circuit court should, unless plain mistake he shown, follow such decision in a snit upon the same patent in which the same evidence is relied on.

2. Same — Improvement in Waxing Paper — Injunction.

Deissued patent No. 8,460, for improvement in waxing paper, sustained, and injunction against infringement granted, on final hearing; following a decision in *Hammerschlag*v. *Scamoni,*7 Fed. Eep. 584, rendered upon a motion for a preliminary injunction.

In Equity. Hearing on bill, answer and proofs.

Bill for injunction to restrain the infringement of reissued letters patent No. 8,460, for improvement in waxing paper. Defendants denied the novelty of the patent and also denied the infringement. It appeared by the proofs that, in a suit brought in the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York by the same complainant against different defendants, to restrain an infringement of the same patent, the court had, upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, delivered an opinion in which, after a full consideration of the merits, and of the evidence respecting the state of the art and prior invention relied on in this suit, the complainant’s patent was sustained and the preliminary injunction granted. See report of case, *Hammerschlag*v. Scamoni, 7 Fed. Rep. 584.

*Frost & Coe*and *John K. Valentine,*for complainant.

*Collier & Bell,*for respondent.

*

Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.

Butler, D. J.

The circuit court for the southern district of New York decided the plaintiff’s patent to he valid in *Hammerschlag*v. *Scamoni,*and construed its several claims. The evidence respecting the state of the art, and prior invention, now relied upon by the *44defendant, was before the court in that case. The conclusion then reached should, therefore, be followed, unless indeed plain mistake be shown. A proper regard for uniformity of decision requires this. If the defendant thinks he is injured, a review can be had in the supreme court, and the subject thus be put at rest. The confusion and mischief likely to result from conflicting decisions should be avoided. While there may be difficulty in distinguishing the plaintiff’s process and machinery from that- described in the British letters pátent No. 55, granted to John Stenhouse, we do not feel ourselves justified in saying they cannot be distinguished, as they were in the case cited, and thus disregard the decision there made. As respects the question of infringement, the defendant’s process and machinery are so similar in all respects, to that of the defendant in *Hammerschlag*v. Scamoni, that what is there said on this subject, applies with equal force here.

A decree must therefore be entered for the plaintiff.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 183 (Friday, September 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20178]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, 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 Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel 
NEI; Institutional Training Grant Applications.
    Date: October 16, 2017.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Jeanette M. Hosseini, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, NEI/DEA/SRB, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers 
Lane, Suite 1300, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2020, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fe949b9f909b8a8a9b96be939f9792d0909796d0999188"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e040b0f000b1a1a0b062e030f07024000070640090118">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 18, 2017.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-20178 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 23.1


                                   [LOGO]
                     SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.
                        CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated January 13,
2005 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Slade's Ferry
Bancorp. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related
consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004
which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004 of Slade's Ferry Bancorp.


                                      /s/ Shatswell, MacLeod & Company, P.C.

                                      SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & COMPANY, P.C.

West Peabody, Massachusetts
March 22, 2005


           83 PINE STREET * WEST PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS 01960-3635
             TELEPHONE (978) 535-0206 * FACSIMILE (978) 535-9908
                   smc@shatswell.com     www.shatswell.com


<PAGE>