alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Commission Meeting Addresses Fact Finding 29 and Alliance Monitoring","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uE98rH7hMe\"><a href=\"\/commission-meeting-addresses-fact-finding-29-and-alliance-monitoring\/\">Commission Meeting Addresses Fact Finding 29 and Alliance Monitoring<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/commission-meeting-addresses-fact-finding-29-and-alliance-monitoring\/embed\/#?secret=uE98rH7hMe\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commission Meeting Addresses Fact Finding 29 and Alliance Monitoring” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"uE98rH7hMe\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
```
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                     906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jacobson Resonance Enterprises, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr.
Jerry I. Jacobson, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

        (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.
```
#### TCC AIRSERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Basic Systems of Delaware, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Richard SCHLESINGER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10729

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 20, 2008.

*924William H. Pincus, Guy Carman Icangelo, Jr., Law Offices of William H. Pincus, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Before ANDERSON, HULL and SILER,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Eugene Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the judgment of the district court is due to be affirmed. We believe that the instant situation is probably within the contemplation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.501(b)(5), which indicates that charges not in excess of the cost of owning, operating and maintaining the airplane may be made when the situation involves carriage of guests of a company when the carriage is within the scope of, and incidental to, the business of the company (other than transportation by air). Schlesinger failed to prove that the charges exceeded such costs.

In any event, we agree with the district court that Schlesinger is not within that class of persons intended to be protected by the regulation.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Alerta Al Consumidor – La Comisi\u00f3n Revoca La Fmc Licencia De Transporte Medrano, Inc. D\/B\/A Medrano Express","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uau2UI0a6X\"><a href=\"\/alerta-al-consumidor-la-comision-revoca-la-fmc-licencia-de-transporte-medrano-inc-d-b-a-medrano-express\/\">Alerta Al Consumidor – La Comisi\u00f3n Revoca La Fmc Licencia De Transporte Medrano, Inc. D\/B\/A Medrano Express<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/alerta-al-consumidor-la-comision-revoca-la-fmc-licencia-de-transporte-medrano-inc-d-b-a-medrano-express\/embed\/#?secret=uau2UI0a6X\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Alerta Al Consumidor – La Comisi\u00f3n Revoca La Fmc Licencia De Transporte Medrano, Inc. D\/B\/A Medrano Express” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"uau2UI0a6X\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Ichargeit, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of the Company.





Dated:  April 16, 2007



/s/ James F. Carroll



Name: James F. Carroll

Title:  Chief Executive Officer







Dated:  April 16, 2007



/s/ James F. Carroll



Name: James F. Carroll

Title:  Chief Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JONATHAN F. BERNS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-1946 ) LAUREN FRIEDER, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed March 21, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Frances M. Perrone, Acting Circuit, Judge. Allison M. Perry of Florida Appeals & Mediations, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Frank C. Miranda of Frank C. Miranda, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Chairman Cordero Testifies to Congress Regarding Regulatory Review","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"i4Lgs1srLh\"><a href=\"\/chairman-cordero-testifies-to-congress-regarding-regulatory-review\/\">Chairman Cordero Testifies to Congress Regarding Regulatory Review<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/chairman-cordero-testifies-to-congress-regarding-regulatory-review\/embed\/#?secret=i4Lgs1srLh\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Chairman Cordero Testifies to Congress Regarding Regulatory Review” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"i4Lgs1srLh\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rolando HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10785

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 27, 2011.

Alan M. Buie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rolando Hernandez appeals from the revocation of his term of supervised release and the 14-month sentenced imposed upon revocation. He argues that the criminal history score in his 2003 presentence report was incorrectly calculated because two of his convictions should have been considered related. He contends that he could not have obtained relief previously as to the incorrectly calculated criminal history score because it would have been found to be harmless error on direct appeal, as he was sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentence in 2003. According to Hernandez, the allegedly incorrect score did not affect his substantial rights until the revocation proceeding. Alternatively, Hernandez contends that his 14-month sentence created an unwarranted disparity with similarly situated defendants.

We ordinarily review sentences imposed on the revocation of supervised release under the plainly unreasonable standard. *United States v. Miller,*634 F.3d 841, 842 (5th Cir.2011). Because Hernandez did not raise an objection to his revocation sentence in the district court, however, any error raised on appeal is subject to plain error review. *See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 192, 175 L.Ed.2d 120 (2009). To show plain error, Hernandez must show a for*433feited error that is clear or obvious that affects his substantial rights. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, -, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he were to make such a showing, this court would have the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. *See id.*

A defendant may not use a supervised release proceeding to challenge the validity of his original conviction or sentence. *United States v. Willis,*563 F.3d 168, 170 (5th Cir.2009); *United States v. Hinson,*429 F.3d 114, 116 (5th Cir.2005); *United States v. Moody,*277 F.3d 719, 721 (5th Cir.2001). Hernandez has failed to show error, plain or otherwise.

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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph LoRusso, Appellant.

[670 NYS2d 120]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered September 18, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends, *inter alia,*that the hearing court erred by concluding that his right to counsel was not violated when the police conducted an investigatory lineup in the absence of his attorney. We disagree.

When reviewing a determination of a hearing court, its findings of fact and determinations of credibility must be accorded great deference, as that court had the opportunity to view the witnesses during their testimony *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759; *People v Snell,*239 AD2d 529). Here the hearing court credited the evidence adduced by a detective that the defendant’s attorney was notified of an impending lineup but failed to appear, as opposed to the vague and incredible testimony of that attorney. Under these circumstances, there was no violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel *(see, People v Cherry,*161 AD2d 185, 186).

*307There is no merit to the defendant’s argument that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error. Most of the challenged remarks are not preserved for appellate review since the defendant either failed to object to them or failed to seek any further relief when his objections were sustained *(see, People v Moore,*226 AD2d 745). In any event, while some of the comments would have been better left unsaid, they were nevertheless harmless *(see, People v Moore, supra).*

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

2:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 26, 2017.

# PLACE:

Closed Commission Hearing Room 10800.

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

Chairman Clayton, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session.

The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings; and

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Brent J. Fields from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: October 19, 2017.

Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-23123 Filed 10-20-17; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3537 

To amend and reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design 

Program Act of 1994. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 

Mr. ORTIZ (for himself and Mr. BROWN of South Carolina) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend and reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp 

Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Junior Duck Stamp 

5 Conservation and Design Program Reauthorization Act of 

6 2009’’. 

7 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

8 Congress finds the following: 

9 (1) In 2007–2008, sales of the $5 Junior Duck 

10 Stamp generated more than $100,000 in revenue, all 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3537 IH

1 of which was used to provide educational materials 

2 for the program, fund scholarships for students, and 

3 support and promote the program’s goal of con4 necting children with nature. 

5 (2) Now in its 20th year, the Junior Duck 

6 Stamp Conservation and Design Program is one of 

7 this country’s oldest and most successful govern8 ment-sponsored, youth-focused conservation biology 

9 programs. The program continues to build strong 

10 partnerships with public and parochial schools, 

11 homeschoolers and after-school programs, and other 

12 youth-focused education programs throughout the 

13 country. 

14 (3) The Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and 

15 Design Program continues to foster strong partner16 ships among Federal and State government agen17 cies, nongovernment organizations, the business 

18 community, and others in the private sector to pro19 mote youth conservation initiatives. 

20 (4) With its conservation-focused science and 

21 arts curriculum, the Junior Duck Stamp Conserva22 tion and Design Program has helped prepare hun23 dreds of thousands of students to become stewards 

24 of America’s irreplaceable wild places and treasured 

25 outdoor heritage. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3537 IH

1 SEC. 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENT. 

2 Section 2(c)(2) of the Junior Duck Stamp Conserva3 tion and Design Program Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 

4 719(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(2) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—Beginning in 

6 2010 and every 5 years thereafter, the Secretary 

7 shall submit to Congress a report on the status of 

8 the Program in each State.’’. 

9 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

10 Section 6 of the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation 

11 and Design Program Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 719c) is 

12 amended to read as follows: 

13 ‘‘SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

14 ‘‘There is authorized to be appropriated to the Sec15 retary for administrative expenses of the Program 

16 $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2015.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS