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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 387 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that reimbursements 

for costs of using passenger automobiles for charitable and other organizations are excluded from gross income. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2011 

Mr. PETRI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

that reimbursements for costs of using passenger automobiles for charitable and other organizations are excluded from gross income. 

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 ‘‘Charitable Driving Tax 

5 Relief Act of 2011’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 387 IH

1 SEC. 2. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE VOL2 UNTEERS EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap4 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

5 by inserting after section 139D the following new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 139E. MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTS TO CHARITABLE 

7 VOLUNTEERS. 

8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Gross income of an individual 

9 does not include amounts received from an organization 

10 described in section 170(c) as reimbursement of operating 

11 expenses with respect to use of a passenger automobile 

12 for the benefit of such organization. The preceding sen13 tence shall apply only to the extent that such reimburse14 ment would be deductible under this chapter if section 

15 274(d) were applied— 

16 ‘‘(1) by using the standard business mileage 

17 rate established under such section, and 

18 ‘‘(2) as if the individual were an employee of an 

19 organization not described in section 170(c). 

20 ‘‘(b) APPLICATION TO VOLUNTEER SERVICES

21 ONLY.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any 

22 expenses relating to the performance of services for com23 pensation. 

24 ‘‘(c) NO DOUBLE BENEFIT.—Subsection (a) shall 

25 not apply with respect to any expenses if the individual 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 387 IH

1 claims a deduction or credit for such expenses under any 

2 other provision of this title. 

3 ‘‘(d) EXEMPTION FROM REPORTING REQUIRE4 MENTS.—Section 6041 shall not apply with respect to re5 imbursements excluded from income under subsection 

6 (a).’’. 

7 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

8 for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code 

9 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

10 139D the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 139E. Reimbursement for use of passenger automobile for charity.’’. 

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

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
### §1589. Conveyance of land and nondwelling structures thereon to States for National Guard purposes

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is authorized to convey by quit claim deed, without consideration, to any State for National Guard purposes any land, together with any nondwelling structures thereon, held under subchapters II to VII of this chapter or any other Act in connection with war or veterans' housing: Provided, That the United States shall be saved harmless from or reimbursed for such costs incidental to the conveyance as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may deem proper: Provided further, That the conveyance of such land shall contain the express condition that if the grantee shall fail or cease to use such land for such purposes, or shall alienate (or attempt to alienate) such land, title thereto shall, at the option of the United States, revert to the United States.

(Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 862, title VI, §609, as added June 28, 1948, ch. 688, §7, as added Apr. 20, 1950, ch. 94, title II, §201, 64 Stat. 59; amended Pub. L. 89–174, §5(a), Sept. 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 669.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Subchapters III and VI of this chapter, referred to in text, were comprised of sections 1531 to 1536 and 1571 to 1576, respectively, of this title and have been omitted from the Code. For further details, see note set out under section 1522 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions to Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, see note set out under section 1581 of this title.
Subpart 536.1 - General

Parent topic: Part 536 - Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts

536.101 Applicability.

This part supplements FAR 36 policies and procedures applicable to contracting for construction and

architect engineer services. Contracts for construction management services are covered by FAR 37

and GSAM part 537. part 536 shall take precedence when the acquisition involves (1) construction

or architect-engineer services, and (2) when the requirement is inconsistent with another part of the

GSAR.

536.102 Definitions.

“Construction activity” means the organizational level of the agency that has authority and

responsibility for the architectural, engineering, and other technical or administrative aspects of

design and construction.

“Construction-Manager-as-Constructor” (CMc) means the project delivery method where design and

construction are contracted concurrently through two separate contracts and two separate

contractors. Unlike the traditional design-bid-build delivery method, under the CMc delivery method,

the Government awards a separate contract to a designer (i.e., architect-engineer contractor) and to

a construction contractor (i.e., CMc contractor) prior to the completion of the design documents.

The Government retains the CMc contractor during design to work with the architect-engineer

contractor to provide constructability reviews and cost estimating validation. The CMc contract

includes design phase services at a firm-fixed-price and an option for construction at a guaranteed

maximum price.

“Statutory cost limitations” means the cost limits included in the agency’s statutory authorization or

annual appropriations act (by law).

536.103 Methods of Contracting.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, although CMc contracts are considered

incentive-type contracts (see 536.207), contracting officers are authorized to use the CMc project

delivery method without completing a determination and finding as required by FAR 16.401(d).

Contracting officers shall discuss the CMc project delivery method as part of the acquisition plan

(see FAR 7.105).

(b) To the extent the contracting officer incorporates an award-fee component into the CMc (in

addition to the shared savings incentive), then the determination and finding required by

FAR 16.401(d) is required to support any such award-fee.

(c) The contracting officer shall use the tradeoff process as described in FAR 15.101-1, unless a

different source selection approach is approved in writing by the HCA, for selecting a construction

contractor under the CMc project delivery method, and select sources in accordance with subpart
536.7103.
§ 22.4 Futures Commission Merchants and derivatives clearing organizations: Permitted Depositories. In order for a depository to be a Permitted Depository: ( a ) The depository must (subject to § 22.9) be one of the following types of entities: ( 1 ) A bank located in the United States;
( 2 ) A trust company located in the United States;
( 3 ) A Collecting Futures Commission Merchant registered with the Commission (but only with respect to a Depositing Futures Commission Merchant providing Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral); or
( 4 ) A derivatives clearing organization registered with the Commission; and
( b ) The futures commission merchant or the derivatives clearing organization must hold a written acknowledgment letter from the depository as required by § 22.5 of this part.
§ 23.16 Misuse of the term “properly cut,” etc. It is unfair or deceptive to use the terms “properly cut,” “proper cut,” “modern cut,” or any representation of similar meaning to describe any diamond that is lopsided, or is so thick or so thin in depth as to detract materially from the brilliance of the stone. Note to § 23.16 :
Stones that are commonly called “fisheye” or “old mine” should not be described as “properly cut,” “modern cut,” etc.
§ 5.55 Conduct of investigation. ( a ) The General Counsel may ( 1 ) exercise the authority granted in § 2.5 of the Commission's Rules of Practice to administer oaths and affirmations; and
( 2 ) conduct investigational hearings pursuant to part 2 of these rules. He may also recommend that the Commission issue compulsory process in connection with an investigation under this section.
( b ) Witnesses in investigations shall have the rights set forth in § 2.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
### §10104. Ocean disposal

Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to affect the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).

(Pub. L. 97–425, §5, Jan. 7, 1983, 96 Stat. 2205.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 92–532, Oct. 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 1052, which enacted chapters 32 (§1431 et seq.) and 32A (§1447 et seq.) of Title 16, Conservation, and chapters 27 (§1401 et seq.) and 41 (§2801 et seq.) of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1401 of Title 33 and Tables.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3867 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3867

To amend title 49, United States Code, to require certain air carriers 
 and their agents and ticket agents to disclose certain costs and fees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2012

  Mr. Graves of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Paul, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. 
   Mulvaney, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Roe of 
Tennessee, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Stutzman, Mr. Quayle, Mr. 
   Schweikert, Mr. Walsh of Illinois, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Posey, Mr. 
 Woodall, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Ribble, and Mr. 
 Gingrey of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, to require certain air carriers 
 and their agents and ticket agents to disclose certain costs and fees.

    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 ``Travel Transparency Act''.

SEC. 2. UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND UNFAIR METHODS OF 
              COMPETITION.

    (a) Advertising Practices.--Section 41712 of title 49, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Advertising Practices.--It shall be an unfair or deceptive 
practice under subsection (a) for an air carrier, including an indirect 
air carrier, a foreign carrier, an agent for either, or a ticket agent 
to advertise or solicit passenger air transportation and fail to 
disclose in the cost of such transportation the sum of the base airfare 
and the tax imposed by section 4261(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. 
Any other government imposed taxes and fees paid on a per passenger 
basis shall be disclosed clearly and separately from the base airfare 
in any such advertisement or solicitation.''.
    (b) Conforming Regulations.--Upon the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary shall take such measures as are necessary to change 
section 399.84 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and any other 
related regulation, to ensure that such regulations comply with the 
section 41712(d) of title 49, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1502.40 Initial decision. ( a ) The presiding officer shall prepare and file an initial decision as soon as practicable after the filing of briefs and oral argument.
( b ) The initial decision shall contain— ( 1 ) Findings of fact based upon relevant, material, and reliable evidence of record;
( 2 ) Conclusions of law;
( 3 ) A discussion of the reasons for the findings and conclusions, including a discussion of the significant contentions made by any participant;
( 4 ) Citations to the record supporting the findings and conclusions;
( 5 ) An appropriate regulation supported by substantial evidence of record and based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law (unless the initial decision is to not issue a regulation);
( 6 ) An effective date for the regulation (if any), together with an explanation of why the effective date is appropriate; and
( 7 ) The periods of time for filing exceptions to the initial decision with the Office of the Secretary and for filing replies to such exceptions, in accordance with § 1502.41(a)-(c).
( c ) The initial decision must refrain from disclosing specific details of trade secrets and privileged or confidential commercial or financial information, except as specifically authorized in a protective order issued by the presiding officer.
( d ) The initial decision is to be filed with the Office of the Secretary and served upon all participants. Once the initial decision is filed with the Office of the Secretary, the presiding officer has no further jurisdiction over the matter, and any motions or requests filed with the Office of the Secretary will be decided by the Commission.
( e ) The initial decision becomes the final decision of the Commission by operation of law unless a participant files exceptions with the Office of the Secretary under § 1502.41(a) or the Commission files a notice of review under § 1502.41(f).
( f ) Notice that an initial decision has become the decision of the Commission without appeal to or review by the Commission will be published in the Federal Register. The Commission also may publish the decision when it is of widespread interest.
No: I-16-008 March 30, 2016 

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

NRC to Hold Open House on April 6 in Delta, Pa.,

to Discuss 2015 Performance of Peach Bottom Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a public open house on Wednesday, April 6, 

in Delta, Pa., to discuss the agency’s annual review of safety performance at the Peach Bottom nuclear 

power plant.

NRC staff will be at the Peach Bottom Inn, located at 6085 Delta Road, Delta, from 

5:30 - 7 p.m. to discuss the plant’s performance in 2015 and the agency’s oversight plans for the 

remainder of 2016. On hand will be agency employees responsible for inspections of the plant, 

including the Resident Inspectors based at the Delta (York County), Pa., site on a full-time basis.

The NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process is the foundational program that enables the agency to 

successfully complete its mission of assessing plant safety. Under that program, the NRC gauges plant 

performance through the use of color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators, which are 

statistical measurements of plant performance that can trigger additional oversight if exceeded.

Based on its 2015 reviews, the NRC determined that Peach Bottom, which is the site of two 

operating reactors owned by Exelon, was operated safely during 2015. As of the end of last year, Peach 

Bottom Units 2 and 3 had no inspection findings or performance indicators that were greater than 

“green” (very low safety significance).

The NRC’s normal level of oversight at each U.S. nuclear power plant involves thousands of 

hours of inspection. In 2015, the agency devoted approximately 5,365 hours of review at Peach 

Bottom.

“Our Annual Assessments allow us to step back at regular intervals and size up plant 

performance. However, we view oversight of each facility as an ongoing responsibility,” NRC Region I 

Administrator Dan Dorman said. “In the case of Peach Bottom, the plant’s current performance 

qualifies for our normal level of oversight.”

The NRC issues reports on performance at each plant twice a year: during the mid-cycle, or 

mid-point, of the year, and at the conclusion of the year. Inspection findings and performance indicators 

are also updated on a quarterly basis on the agency’s website. Following the release of the Annual 

Assessment letters each March, the NRC meets with the public in the vicinity of each plant to discuss 

the results. Normal inspections are performed by two Resident Inspectors assigned to Peach Bottom. 
Page | 2

Reviews are also carried out at the sites by specialist inspectors assigned to the agency’s Region I 

Office in King of Prussia, Pa.

Among the areas to be inspected this year at Peach Bottom are radiological controls and safety, 

emergency planning and the plant’s dry cask storage facility for spent nuclear fuel.

The Annual Assessment letter for Peach Bottom, as well as the notice for the April 6th open 

house, are available on the NRC website. Current performance information is also available for Peach 

Bottom Unit 2 and Unit 3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Oral Eastman, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 263]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blackburne, J.), rendered July 9, 2003, convicting him of promoting prostitution in the second degree (five counts), promoting prostitution in the third degree (five counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s claim that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him was preserved for appellate review. Further, we agree with the defendant that the People failed to establish probable cause for his arrest by a detective at the 75th Precinct based on the “fellow officer rule.” “Under the fellow officer rule, a police officer can make a lawful arrest even without personal knowledge sufficient to establish probable cause, so long as the officer is acting upon the direction of or as a result of communication with a fellow officer ... in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest. . . Information received from another police officer is presumptively reliable . . . Where, however, an arrest is challenged by a motion to suppress, the prosecution bears the burden of establishing that the officer *966imparting the information had probable cause to act” *(People v Ketcham,*93 NY2d 416, 419-420 [1999] [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]). Here, the arresting officer was the only witness at the *Mapp*hearing *(see Mapp v Ohio,*367 US 643 [1961]). The officer testified that after speaking with the victim, he had a physical description and several street names for the person he was seeking. However, he never testified that he arrested the defendant at the precinct because the defendant matched the description or answered to one of the street names. Rather, he testified that he arrested the defendant based on information from another detective that the appellant was the suspect without any explanation as to why the other detective held this belief. Thus, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that the fellow officer was in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause for the arrest *(see People v Ketcham, supra*at 420; *People v Samuels,*270 AD2d 779 [2000]) and, accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly admitted into evidence the condoms seized from the defendant after his unlawful arrest. However, we conclude that this error was not so prejudicial as to require a new trial and was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt presented at trial *(see People v Stevens,*76 NY2d 833, 836 [1990]; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]). Crane, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00243

- CV
Christus Spohn Health System Corporation d/b/a Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi

– South

v. Cheryl Williams and Ronald Williams

On a ppeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016DCV

- 4437

- C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REN D ER ED in accordance with its opinio n

. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee s

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 6, 2020
### §16961. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 16961 was editorially reclassified as section 20961 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### Daniel E. Pomeroy v. Hocking Valley Railroad Company. Daniel E. Pomeroy v. Hocking Valley Railroad Company. Arthur Warriner v. Hocking Valley Railroad Company.

Motion for stay granted. Orders to be settled on notice. Present—Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Page, JJ.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 19-423

________________________________________________________________________

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Extradition

Treaty Between the

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

and SERBIA

Signed at Belgrade August 15, 2016
NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent

evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof

or authentication thereof.”
SERBIA

Law Enforcement: Extradition

Treaty signed at Belgrade August 15, 2016.

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America

to the Senate January 17, 2017 (Treaty Doc. 115-1), 

115th Congress, 1st Session.

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

March 20, 2018 (Senate Executive Report No. 115-4,

115th Congress, 2d Session).

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate July 26, 2018.

Ratified by the President December 20, 2018.

Ratified by Serbia February 20, 2019.

Exchange of instruments of ratification at Belgrade April 23, 2019.

Entered into force April 23, 2019.