alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1344. Election disputes

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action to recover possession of any office, except that of elector of President or Vice President, United States Senator, Representative in or delegate to Congress, or member of a state legislature, authorized by law to be commenced, where in it appears that the sole question touching the title to office arises out of denial of the right to vote, to any citizen offering to vote, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.

The jurisdiction under this section shall extend only so far as to determine the rights of the parties to office by reason of the denial of the right, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and secured by any law, to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in all the States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 932.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §41(15) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §24, par. 15, 36 Stat. 1092).

Words "civil action" were substituted for "suits," in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Words "United States Senator" were added, as no reason appears for including Representatives and excluding Senators. Moreover, the Seventeenth amendment, providing for the popular election of Senators, was adopted after the passage of the 1911 law on which this section is based.

Changes were made in phraseology.
(No. 742

Claimant awarded $9,266.96.)

#### Victor Chemical Works, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 1, 1925.*

Franchise *tax*— when *refund may le made.*This case is similar to that of *Herenden Milling Oo.*v. *State, supra,*and the decision of the court in that case governs this claim.

Moran, Paltzer & O’Donnell, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for refund of portion of franchise taxes erroneously paid by above named claimant to the Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, in the years 1921 and 1922, total excess tax paid amounting to $9266.96.

The demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, is, as a matter of law, sustained.

On the grounds of equity and social justice, we award claimant the sum of $9266.96.
PHYSICAL ITEM REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598

DCN: SGE00724.A16

SEE VISIT THE DOCKET CENTER
Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM   Document 26-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020   Page 1 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM   Document 26-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020   Page 2 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM   Document 26-1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/13/2020   Page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Titan Manufacturing Co., Inc., Respondent. Herbert M. Isaacson, Appellant; Samuel M. Fleischman, Respondent.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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 Accenture SCA (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
August 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pamela J. Craig, Chief Financial Officer of Accenture plc, the general partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§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 operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                               
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: October 21, 2011 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ PAMELA J. CRAIG                                                           
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Pamela J. Craig                                                               
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer of Accenture plc,
the general partner of Accenture SCA
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | (principal financial officer)
No: II-23-027 September 19, 2023 

Contact: Dave Gasperson, 404-997-4417 

NRC Names New Senior Resident Inspector at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected Tim Steadham as the 

new senior resident inspector at the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant. The 

plant, operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority, is located in Athens, 

Alabama. 

Steadham joined the NRC in 2002 as a project engineer in the NRC's 

Region III office in Lisle, Illinois, and has held various positions, including 

resident inspector, senior construction project engineer, and senior construction 

inspector. Most recently, he served as the senior resident inspector at the Grand 

Gulf Nuclear Station in Port Gibson, Mississippi. He earned a bachelor's degree in nuclear 

engineering from the Missouri University of Science and Technology. 

“Tim’s extensive experience and dedication to nuclear safety, cultivated over the years in 

various roles with the NRC, makes him exceptionally qualified to lead our inspections at the plant,” 

said NRC Region II Administrator Laura Dudes. “His depth of understanding, coupled with his 

hands-on work in the field, assures us that Browns Ferry will continue to operate under the most 

rigorous safety standards.” 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. 

Steadham joins Resident Inspector Kevin Pfeil, serving as the agency’s eyes and ears at Browns 

Ferry, to conduct inspections, monitor significant work projects, and interact with plant workers and 

the public. Resident inspectors can be assigned to any one site for up to seven years.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5176 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

amounts received from State-based catastrophe loss mitigation programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 1, 2022 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) 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 exclude 

from gross income amounts received from State-based 

catastrophe loss mitigation programs. 

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 ‘‘Disaster Mitigation 

5 and Tax Parity Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM STATE7 BASED CATASTROPHE LOSS MITIGATION 

8 PROGRAMS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 139 of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5176 IS

1 (h) as subsection (i) and by inserting after subsection (g) 

2 the following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(h) STATE-BASED CATASTROPHE LOSS MITIGATION

4 PROGRAMS.— 

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Gross income shall not in6 clude any amount received by an individual as a 

7 qualified catastrophe mitigation payment under a 

8 program established by— 

9 ‘‘(A) a State, 

10 ‘‘(B) a political subdivision or instrumen11 tality thereof, or 

12 ‘‘(C) an entity established under State 

13 charter, 

14 for the purpose of making such payments. 

15 ‘‘(2) QUALIFIED CATASTROPHE MITIGATION

16 PAYMENT.—For purposes of this section, the term 

17 ‘qualified catastrophe mitigation payment’ means 

18 any amount which is received by an individual to 

19 make improvements to such individual’s residence 

20 for the sole purpose of reducing the damage that 

21 would be done to such residence by a windstorm, 

22 earthquake, wildfire, or flooding. 

23 ‘‘(3) NO INCREASE IN BASIS.—Rules similar to 

24 the rules of subsection (g)(3) shall apply in the case 

25 of this subsection.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 5176 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 (1) Section 139(d) is amended by striking ‘‘and 

3 qualified’’ and inserting ‘‘, qualified catastrophe 

4 mitigation payments, and qualified’’. 

5 (2) Section 139(i) (as redesignated by sub6 section (a)) is amended by striking ‘‘or qualified’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘, qualified catastrophe mitigation 

8 payment, or qualified’’. 

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning 

12 after December 31, 2020. 

13 (2) RETROACTIVE APPLICABILITY.—The exclu14 sion under section 139(h) of the Internal Revenue 

15 Code of 1986, as added by this section, may be 

16 claimed for taxable years beginning after December 

17 31, 2020, including by amended return. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.393 Are there special application requirements? ( a ) An applicant must submit documentation from: ( 1 ) A mortgage lender indicating that permanent mortgage money is available to qualified purchasers to buy such properties;
( 2 ) A real estate broker indicating that a market exists for the proposed building and that it will be compatible with its neighborhood; and
( 3 ) An architect, appraiser or engineer agreeing to make inspections and certifications to support interim disbursements.
( b ) The Borrower may substitute a letter from a qualified Lender for one or more of the letters.
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Watching Wildlife
Exhibit 99.2



                                 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned, the trustee (the "Trustee") in respect of the Trust
Certificates (TRUCs) Series 2001-2, hereby certifies to Bear Stearns Depositor
Inc. as follows:

     1.   I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on
          Form 8-K filed by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, solely as
          Trustee for the Trust Certificates (TRUCs) Series 2001-2 Trust and
          any distribution reports filed in respect of the Trust during the
          2005 calendar year;

     2.   The information in those reports, taken as a whole, 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, no misleading
          as of the last day of the period covered by the annual report;

     3.   The distribution or servicing information required to be provided to
          the depositor by the Trustee under the trust agreement for inclusion
          in these reports is included in such reports; and

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          Trustee under the trust agreement and except as disclosed in these
          reports, the Trustee has fulfilled its obligations under the trust
          agreement.

                                    U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


                                    By:  /s/ Thomas E. Tabor
                                    --------------------------
                                    Name: Thomas E. Tabor
                                    Title:
                                    Vice President
                                    Date:  March 30, 2006
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2160

REGINALD D. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS CALDERA, Secretary to the United States Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-3732-3-17BC) Submitted: July 30, 2002 Decided: August 22, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Reginald D. Evans appeals the district court’s order setting aside the jury’s verdict and granting Appellee’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Evans v. Caldera , No. CA-97- 3732-3-17BC (D.S.C. Sept. 18, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Mark R. Richards, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Appleton Papers Inc., certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Appleton Papers Inc.;

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(s) 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) 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 report based on such evaluation; and

c) 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) 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 the 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: March 6, 2007



|           |  |                                                
|---------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|           | 
|Signature: |  | /s/ Mark R. Richards                           
|           |  | Mark R. Richards                               
|           |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
HomeAbout NRCContracting Opportunities

# Information for Small Businesses

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is committed to ensuring that small businesses are afforded the maximum practicable prime and subcontract opportunities in support of agency mission operations. The Small Business Program takes the lead in this effort by serving the NRC and the business community by advocating for small businesses, including businesses owned by the disadvantaged, women, veterans, and service-disabled veterans, as well as companies located in Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZones). In addition, the NRC's Small Business Program hosts Small Business Exchange and Matchmaking Events to explore the marketplace, introduce the agency, and its contract opportunities.

For more information, please see the following pages:
            - Overview of the Small Business Program
            - Tips for Conducting Business with NRC
            - Small Business Contracting Programs
            - SBA Small Business Procurement Scorecard
            - Small Business Exchange and Matchmaking Events
            - Other Useful Small Business and Acquisition Links
            - Find an OSDBU
            - Find a Forecast
            - Request a Small Business Counseling Session

Contact us to learn more about opportunities:
            - Phone: (800) 903-SBCR
            - TDD: (301) 415-5244
            - Email:  smallbusiness@nrc.gov

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, February 20, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - NRC Contracting Opportunities
          - Information for Small Businesses

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Outreach Events

If you would like to participate, the Small Business Program is hosting two webinar events.

#### Toolbox

            - Forecast of Contracting Opportunities
            - Electronic Bulletin Board
            - Calendar of Events
            - Current Contract Opportunities
            - Subcontracting Opportunities
            - How to View an NRC Contract

#### National Lab Opportunities

            - Pacific Northwest National Lab (PNNL)
            - Sandia National Lab (SNL)
            - Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, February 20, 2024
#### Abbott *v.*Berrie, sheriff.

November 18, 1910.

Holden, *J.*

*A*verdict and judgment were rendered against the defendant in proceedings to evict him as a tenant holding over. To the order of the court overruling his motion for a new trial he filed a hill of exceptions, and for the purpose of having it operate as a supersedeas he made the oath required by the Civil Code, § 5552. When the rule nisi was granted upon the motion for a new trial, the court passed an order providing that such order act as a supersedeas upon the defendant complying with specified conditions, and providing that upon failure to comply with such conditions a writ of possession immediately issue in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for the premises in dispute. After the bill of exceptions had been filed, the defendant in the eviction proceedings made application for an injunction to prevent his eviction under a writ of possession which had been issued, and for other relief. The court denied the injunction, and he excepted. *Held:*

1. Upon failure of the defendant to comply with the conditions named in the order, the clerk was authorized to issue a writ of possession against him in favor of the plaintiff, without any further order of the court authorizing the same.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the court to find that at the time the bill of exceptions hereinbefore referred to was filed, and at the time the application for an injunction was made, the applicant had been evicted by the sheriff by virtue of the writ of possession.

3. The court committed no error in refusing the injunction.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices eonour.*

*370Petition for injunction. Before Judge Conyers. Glynn superior court. April 30, 1910.

*Grovati S Whitfield*and *Ernest Dart,*for plaintiff.

*Bennet, Ttvitty & Reese,*for defendant.
§ 418.2 How Project water may be used. Project water may be delivered only to serve valid water rights used for: ( a ) Maintenance of wetlands and fish and wildlife including endangered and threatened species;
( b ) Recreation;
( c ) Irrigation of eligible land; and
( d ) Domestic and other uses of Project water as defined by the decrees.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05090**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  05090\05090_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 05090\05090_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05090\05090_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 05090\05090_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

05090\Certification Statement_05090.pdf Plant certification statement x 05090\Fwd RE Table A-2 and Section 2.2.rtf Technical Resource Correspondence

x 05090\Supporting Documentation\05090_arial view of FNT.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05090\Supporting Documentation\FNT water mass balance diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05090\5090_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05090\05090_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.