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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6918

WILLIAM J. FOY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:05-cv-00873-CMH)

Submitted: November 17, 2006 Decided: December 13, 2006

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William J. Foy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William J. Foy seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foy has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### PANTALEONA T. AQUINO, Plaintiff v. ERNESTO L. AQUINO, Defendant

Domestic No. 185-75

Superior Court of Guam

October 7, 1976

ABBATE, *Judge*

DECISION

On 18 March, 1976 the Honorable Janet Healy Weeks rendered nunc pro tunc an interlocutory judgment of divorce, after the court heard uncontested testimony pursuant to Plaintiff’s Complaint in Divorce, filed April 29, 1975. A Separation Agreement executed between Plaintiff and Defendant on December 1, 1975 was incorporated by reference into the decree and made a part thereof, “... and the property settlement contained therein is hereby made binding on the parties affected as if set forth in this Decree in full”.

Plaintiff on August 19, 1976, filed an Order to Show Cause, compelling Defendant to appear in court on September 2nd to explain alleged non-compliance with the •Separation Agreement. On September 2nd and 3rd this court heard testimony and oral argument on Plaintiff’s cause.

Defendant on August 30, 1976, filed an Order to Show Cause in Re Modification of Order for Alimony and *346Support, and it too was scheduled for hearing on September 2nd. However, Defendant decided to reschedule this action for a separate hearing at a later date.

This court has jurisdiction to enforce the provisions, both support and property settlement provisions, of the integrated Marital Separation Agreement since that agreement was fully incorporated into the Decree and the parties were ordered by the court to comply with its provisions. On the other hand, this court does not have jurisdiction to modify the support or property settlement provisions because the Marital Separation Agreement itself does not provide for modification. *Plumer v. Plumer,*313 P.2d 549 (1957), *Dexter v. Dexter,*265 P.2d 873 (1954).

The court held in abeyance its determinations in this case, and after due deliberation decides the following:

(1) Defendant is ordered to pay the following amount of alimony currently overdue:

December, 1975 $800.00

August, 1976 $450.00

(2) Defendant is ordered to make the following payments due Plaintiff for real estate settlements:

Lot 5110 $5,861.07

Lot 5119 $1,100.00

Lot 5223 $24.00

(3) Defendant is ordered to pay $200.00 in child support, this amount owable from December 1975. As to child-related payments for the minor child, Defendant is ordered to reimburse Plaintiff for these expenses only:

Bus Service $256.00

Clothing $64.40

(4) By stipulation Plaintiff agreed to drop the request for deprivation of Defendant’s child visitation rights in residence.

(5) Regarding furniture, Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff the $175.00 received from the sale of two (2) *347items, and to make available to Plaintiff all other furniture from the “Perezville House”. However, Plaintiff shall absorb any and all costs of moving said furniture to the desired location.

(6) No accounting by Defendant is required.

(7) Defendant is not required to pay Plaintiff’s counsel fees.

Submit order.
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 73 FR 32429, June 9, 2008.

§ 21.10 Express options, flexible alternative procedures, accelerated schedules, summary decisions, and status and other conferences. ( a ) Upon a request filed by a party or on its own initiative, GAO may decide a protest using an express option.
( b ) The express option will be adopted at the discretion of GAO and only in those cases suitable for resolution within 65 days.
( c ) Requests for the express option shall be filed not later than 5 days after the protest or supplemental/amended protest is filed. GAO will promptly notify the parties whether the case will be handled using the express option.
( d ) When the express option is used, the following schedule applies instead of those deadlines in § 21.3 and § 21.7: ( 1 ) The agency shall file a complete report within 20 days after it receives notice from GAO that the express option will be used.
( 2 ) Comments on the agency report shall be filed within 5 days after receipt of the report.
( 3 ) Where circumstances demonstrate that a case is no longer suitable for resolution using the express option, GAO shall establish a new schedule for submissions by the parties.
( e ) GAO, on its own initiative or upon a request filed by the parties, may use flexible alternative procedures to promptly and fairly resolve a protest, including alternative dispute resolution, establishing an accelerated schedule, and/or issuing a summary decision.
( f ) GAO may conduct status and other conferences by telephone or in person with all parties participating in a protest to promote the expeditious development and resolution of the protest.
[61 FR 39042, July 26, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 79836, Dec. 31, 2002; 83 FR 13825, Apr. 2, 2018]
### §1176. Penalties

Whoever violates any of the provisions of sections 1172, 1173, 1174, or 1175 of this title shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(Jan. 2, 1951, ch. 1194, §6, 64 Stat. 1135.)
§ 201.72 Scales; testing of. ( a ) As a stockyard owner, swine contractor, market agency, dealer, packer, or live poultry dealer who weighs livestock, live poultry, or feed for purposes of purchase, sale, acquisition, payment, or settlement of livestock or live poultry, or who weighs livestock carcasses for the purpose of purchase on a carcass weight basis, or who furnishes scales for such purposes, you must have your scales tested by competent persons at least twice during each calendar year. You must complete the first of the two scale tests between January 1 and June 30 of the calendar year. The remaining scale test must be completed between July 1 and December 31 of the calendar year. You must have a minimum period of 120 days between these two tests. More frequent testing will be required in cases where the scale does not maintain accuracy between tests. *Except that* if scales are used on a limited seasonal basis (during any continuous 8-month period) for purposes of purchase, sale, acquisition, payment or settlement, the stockyard owner, swine contractor, market agency, dealer, live poultry dealer, or packer using such scales may use the scales within a 8-month period following each test.
( b ) As a stockyard owner, swine contractor, market agency, dealer, packer, or live poultry dealer who weighs livestock, livestock carcasses, live poultry, or feed for purposes of purchase, sale, acquisition, payment, or settlement of livestock, livestock carcasses or live poultry, you must furnish reports of tests and inspections on forms approved by the Administrator. You must retain one copy of the test and inspection report for yourself, and file a second copy with the PSD regional office for the geographical region where the scale is located.
( c ) When scales used for weighing livestock, livestock carcasses, live poultry, or feed are tested and inspected by a State agency, municipality, or other governmental subdivision, the forms used by such agency for reporting such scale tests and inspections may be accepted in lieu of the forms approved for this same purpose by the Administrator if the forms contain substantially the same information.
[76 FR 3487, Jan. 20, 2011; 76 FR 50881, Aug. 17, 2011; 88 FR 62696, Sept. 13, 2023]
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 73 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the deduction for 

advertising and promotional expenses for prescription drugs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2019 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Mr. BROWN, Mr. KING, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. BALDWIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. REED, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. WARREN, Ms. 

HIRONO, Ms. SMITH, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BENNET, Mrs. 

FEINSTEIN, Mr. MANCHIN, and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the 

deduction for advertising and promotional expenses for 

prescription drugs. 

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 ‘‘End Taxpayer Sub5 sidies for Drug Ads Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 73 IS

1 SEC. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR ADVERTISING 

2 AND PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES FOR PRE3 SCRIPTION DRUGS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part IX of subchapter B of chap5 ter 1 of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

6 (relating to items not deductible) is amended by adding 

7 at the end the following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 280I. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR DIRECT9 TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISING OF PRESCRIP10 TION DRUGS. 

11 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No deduction shall be allowed 

12 under this chapter for expenses relating to direct-to-con13 sumer advertising of prescription drugs for any taxable 

14 year. 

15 ‘‘(b) DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISING.—For 

16 purposes of this section, the term ‘direct-to-consumer ad17 vertising’ means any dissemination, by or on behalf of a 

18 sponsor of a prescription drug product (as such term is 

19 defined in section 735(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

20 Cosmetic Act), of an advertisement which— 

21 ‘‘(1) is in regard to such prescription drug 

22 product, and 

23 ‘‘(2) primarily targeted to the general public, 

24 including through— 

25 ‘‘(A) publication in journals, magazines, 

26 other periodicals, and newspapers, 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 73 IS

1 ‘‘(B) broadcasting through media such as 

2 radio, television, and telephone communication 

3 systems, direct mail, and billboards, and 

4 ‘‘(C) dissemination on the Internet or 

5 through digital platforms (including social 

6 media, mobile media, web applications, digital 

7 applications, mobile applications, and electronic 

8 applications).’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec10 tions for such part IX of the Internal Revenue Code of 

11 1986 is amended by adding after the item relating to sec12 tion 280H the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 280I. Disallowance of deduction for direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

15 the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years 

16 ending after such date. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund IV L.P. (the “Fund”) on Form10-K for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John P. Manning,Director, Principal and Principal Executive Officer of C&M Management Inc.,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after dueinquiry:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Fund.

 

 
|           | Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund IV L.P |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|           |                                                                |   |
|           | By:                                                                 | Boston Capital Associates IV L.P. |
|           |                                                                | General Partner |
|           |                                                                |   |
|           | By:                                                                 | BCA Associates Limited Partnership, |
|           |                                                                | General Partner |
|           |                                                                |   |
|           | By:                                                                 | C&M Management Inc., |
|           |                                                                | General Partner |
|           |                                                                |   |
| Date:          |                                                                |   |
| July 15,  2003 | By:                                                                 | /s/ John P. Manning |   |
|           |                                                                |   |
|           |                                                                | John P. Manning |
|           |                                                                | Director,  President, Principal Executive Officer |
|                |                                                                     |  |  |  |

 

----
# C_2013304EN.01000202.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/2

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2013 — Regione Puglia v Italian Republic, European Commission

(Case C-586/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - ERDF - Decision reducing financial aid - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regional body - Act directly affecting that body - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 304/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Regione Puglia (represented by: F. Brunelli and A. Aloia, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission (represented by: L. Prete and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2011 in Case T-84/10 Regione Puglia v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment in part of Decision C(2009) 10350 of the European Commission of 22 December 2009 concerning the reduction in the financial aid from the European Regional Development Fund granted under Commission Decision C(2000) 2349 of 8 August 2000 approving the operational programme POR Puglia for the period from 2000 to 2006, under objective No 1 — Absence of oral procedure — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Not directly affected — Inadmissibility — Insufficient reasons

Regione Puglia

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | The Regione Puglia shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Regione Puglia shall pay the costs.

| 3. | The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Linda M. Patton, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 750]

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered June 14, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed. Present—Scudder, J.E, Kehoe, Martoche and Green, JJ.
### §4304. Award of costs, including attorney's fees, to substantially prevailing party; offset

(a) Notwithstanding sections 15 and 26 of this title, in any claim under the antitrust laws, or any State law similar to the antitrust laws, based on the conducting of a joint venture, or of a standards development activity engaged in by a standards development organization, the court shall, at the conclusion of the action—

(1) award to a substantially prevailing claimant the cost of suit attributable to such claim, including a reasonable attorney's fee, or

(2) award to a substantially prevailing party defending against any such claim the cost of suit attributable to such claim, including a reasonable attorney's fee, if the claim, or the claimant's conduct during the litigation of the claim, was frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith.

(b) The award made under subsection (a) may be offset in whole or in part by an award in favor of any other party for any part of the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, attributable to conduct during the litigation by any prevailing party that the court finds to be frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or in bad faith.

(c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply with respect to any person who—

(1) directly participates in a standards development activity with respect to which a violation of any of the antitrust laws is found,

(2) is not a fulltime employee of a standards development organization that engaged in such activity, and

(3) is, or is an employee or agent of a person who is, engaged in a line of commerce that is likely to benefit directly from the operation of the standards development activity with respect to which such violation is found.

(Pub. L. 98–462, §5, Oct. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1817; Pub. L. 103–42, §3(e)(2), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 119; Pub. L. 108–237, title I, §106, June 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 664.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–237, §106(1), inserted ", or of a standards development activity engaged in by a standards development organization" after "joint venture" in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 108–237, §106(2), added subsec. (c).

1993—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–42 substituted "joint venture" for "joint research and development venture" in introductory provisions.
Exhibit 31.2  Chief
Financial Officer Certification  I, Robert Giambrone, certify that:  1.I
have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2006 of KBW, Inc. (the Registrant);  2.Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The
Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;  b)[Intentionally
omitted.]  c)Evaluated
the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  d)Disclosed
in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The
Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and  b)Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting.  Date:
  December 15, 2006/s/ ROBERT GIAMBRONERobert GiambroneChief Financial Officer
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- 

## ;{o/r:J.- 

## 09/3 Directorate Id entifier: ::;z 

### ot:1...- 11/;:::- 

## ;J.__J

- /fP -AD._,. (/'y o u make changes ro 1/ie wfue s in 

### tlw lah! u**ht~low.** yo 11 JIIII S I .:nswv the'**tntu ~**  

### update oc-cu r dingly

. (( I 

### hey do not , click f ur "li1hJ into and 1 hun ow ofilu ' c/wn,l!,ed cell

. Est im ated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e

. g. , aircraft, engine , (e.g., Inspection , propeller , appl i ance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Nu m ber of Total Cost r eplacemen t ) (include cost ( l abor + 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet D o not include oncondition costs here access , testing , (@$85 / h parts ) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

### Replace the propeller shaft coupler during 1.0**s-,~** 

### $12,000

## \2.1**0~~** 400 

# tl(**~** 

## ? A-c**u~ u**  

### scheduled engine removal and overhaul Replace the propeller s haft 

# k**1,3c~ ooo**  coupler during 40.0 

## 34<Jc.oo $12 , 000 \5 4()C. Oo 

### 85 unscheduled engine I 

### removal and overhaul

,_,



### '
The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U

. S

. fleet: $6, 143 ,000 Costs covered und e r warranty (if known) $

On-Cond iti on Costs:

## ~