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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 263

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow employers a tax 

credit for hiring displaced homemakers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2005

Mr. BILIRAKIS 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 allow 

employers a tax credit for hiring displaced homemakers.

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

3 SECTION 1. DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS ESTABLISHED AS A 

4 TARGETED GROUP FOR PURPOSES OF COM5 PUTING THE CREDIT FOR EMPLOYMENT OF 

6 CERTAIN NEW EMPLOYEES. 

7 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) 

8 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to mem9 bers of targeted groups) is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

10 the end of subparagraph (G), by striking the period at 
2

•HR 263 IH 

1 the end of subparagraph (H) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and 

2 by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(I) a displaced homemaker.’’. 

4 (b) DISPLACED HOMEMAKER DEFINED.—Section 

5 51(d) of such Code (relating to members of targeted 

6 groups) is amended by redesignating paragraphs (10), 

7 (11), and (12) as paragraphs (11), (12), and (13), respec8 tively, and by inserting after paragraph (9) the following 

9 new paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(10) DISPLACED HOMEMAKER.—The term 

11 ‘displaced homemaker’ means an individual who—

12 ‘‘(A) has not worked in the labor force for 

13 the 5-year period ending on the hiring date but 

14 has, during such period, worked in the home 

15 providing unpaid services for family members, 

16 and 

17 ‘‘(B)(i) has been dependent on public as18 sistance or on the income of another family 

19 member but is no longer supported by that in20 come, or 

21 ‘‘(ii) is receiving public assistance on ac22 count of dependent children in the home.’’. 

23 (c) TERMINATION NOT TO APPLY.—Paragraph (4) of 

24 section 51(c) of such Code (relating to termination) is 
3

•HR 263 IH 

1 amended by adding at the end thereof the following flush 

2 sentence: 

3 ‘‘The preceding sentence shall not apply in the case of any 

4 displaced homemaker.’’. 

5 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

7 the date of enactment of this Act to individuals who begin 

8 work for the employer after such date.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Warren Graves, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person, will be treated as a motion to dispense with printing. Motion granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on a *732typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five copies of his brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the November 1960 Term; appeal ordered to be placed on the calendar for November 7, 1960. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Anthony F. Marra, Esq., 100 Centre Street, New York 13, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Beldock, Acting P. J., Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76831-76832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28016]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
State of California)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 7 committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and

[[Page 76832]]

suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue 
Service. The TAP will use citizen input to make recommendations to the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, January 19, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Peterson O'Brien at 1-888-912-
1227, or 206-220-6096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Wednesday, January 19, 2005 from 9 a.m. Pacific Time to 10 a.m. Pacific 
Time via a telephone conference call. The public is invited to make 
oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you 
would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-
888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to Mary Peterson O'Brien, TAP 
Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or you can contact 
us at http://www.improveirs.org. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call 
meeting must be made with Mary Peterson O'Brien. Ms. O'Brien can be 
reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: December 17, 2004.
Bernard Coston,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 04-28016 Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2802 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2802

To prohibit the manufacture, marketing, sale, or shipment in interstate 
   commerce of products designed to assist in defrauding a drug test.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 2005

  Mr. Engel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the manufacture, marketing, sale, or shipment in interstate 
   commerce of products designed to assist in defrauding a drug test.

    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 ``Drug Testing Integrity Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. BAN OF PRODUCTS DESIGNED TO DEFRAUD DRUG TESTS.

    (a) Conduct Prohibited.--It shall be unlawful to knowingly 
manufacture, market, sell, ship, or otherwise provide to another 
individual any product with the intent to assist such other individual 
to use such product to defraud a drug test.
    (b) Definition.--As used in this Act, the term ``defraud a drug 
test'' means--
            (1) submit a substance that purports to be from an 
        individual other than its actual source, or purports to have 
        been excreted or collected other than when it was actually 
        excreted or collected; or
            (2) engage in any other conduct with the intent to produce 
        a false or misleading outcome of a test for the presence of a 
        controlled substance.

SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

    (a) Unfair and Deceptive Act or Practice.--A violation of section 2 
shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or 
deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
    (b) Enforcement Authority.--The Federal Trade Commission shall 
enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the 
same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EERE Information Center

Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version

Fluorescent and Incandescent

Lamps Energy Conservation

Standard Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking Analytical

Spreadsheets

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

prepared the analytical spreadsheets listed

below for the notice of proposed rulemaking

stage of its energy conservation standards

rulemaking on fluorescent and incandescent

reflector lamps.

Life-Cycle Cost Spreadsheet (Excel 19.1

MB)

National Impact Analysis Spreadsheet

for General Service Fluorescent Lamps

(Excel 12.1 MB)

National Impact Analysis Spreadsheet

for Incandescent Reflector Lamps

(Excel 30.1 MB)

Government Regulatory Impact Model

for General Service Fluorescent Lamps

(Excel 3.7 MB)

Government Regulatory Impact Model

for Incandescent Reflector Lamps

(Excel 6.1 MB)

Contact Information

Linda Graves

Lighting Standards Project Manager

(202) 586-1851

Printable Version

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Fluorescent and Incan... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/i...

1 of 2 1/29/2009 4:50 PM

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 37.3
Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 01/28/2009

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Fluorescent and Incan... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/i...

2 of 2 1/29/2009 4:50 PM

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 37.3
exhibit103.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 



LOAN CONTRACT







Party A: (Lender)   Shandong Longkong Travel development Co., Ltd


 



Party B: (Borrower) Yishui Underground Fluorescent Lake Travel Development Co., Ltd









To relieve the financial strain, Party A agrees to provide a Loan to Party B; the loan fund shall be used by Party B for business operating; through consultations, Both Parties agree to sign the contract:


 


Article 1: Description of the loan


 



	
1.  

	
The loan term shall be one year starting from 30-11-2009 to 29-11-2010.







 



	
2.  

	
The loan lending interest rate shall be a monthly rate at of rate of 0.8%.







 



	
3.  

	
The loan shall be used for working capital, Party B shall not change the purpose of the loan.







 



	
4.  

	
The loan Amount is RMB12, 000, 000.00 Yuan; in words: RMB Twelve Million Yuan.







 


Article 2: Commitments


 



	
1.  

	
The loan is due, Party B commits to repay up. Party B fails to repay the Loan including the principal and interest, Party A may go to laws to recover the loan.







 



	
2.  

	
The loan is due, in case of that Party B still has financial strain, the loan may be extended with Party A’s consent.







 


Article 3: The contract is made out in 2 duplicates, each for both parties.


 


 




  





  











  
















Party A: (Lender) Shandong Longkong Travel development Co., Ltd     (sealed)


 


Signature:                    /s/ YU XINBO


 



Party B: (Borrower) Yishui Di Xia Ying Kwong Hu Nu You Fa Zhen Co Ltd (sealed)


 


Signature:                    /s/ XU JIAN









Date: 26-11-2009
§ 191.34 Maximum limitation on benefits. ( a ) In no event may assistance be provided under this subpart for any individual for a period in excess of 45 months, or the equivalent thereof in part-time education or training.
( b ) The eligibility of a spouse for benefits under paragraph (c) or (d) of § 191.31 shall expire on a date which is 10 years after the date of the release of the hostage, or the death of the hostage, respectively. The eligibility of a dependent child for benefits under such paragraphs (c) and (d) shall expire on the 26th birthday of such child or on such later date as determined by the Administrator of the Veterans Administration, as would be applicable if section 1712 of title 38, United States Code, were applicable.
ex41.htm


EXHIBIT 4.1







HARMONY METALS, INC.







A FLORIDA CORPORATION







TOTAL AUTHORIZED ISSUE


500,000 SHARES SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK, $0.001 PAR VALUE












This certifies that _________________________________________________ is hereby issued ____________________________________________________ fully paid and non-assessable Shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock of Harmony Metals, Inc., transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof, in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.







In Witness Whereof, Harmony Metals, Inc. has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed as of the ______ day of _______________ 20                  .


 


 








	  	  	  
	
Chief Executive Officer

	
[SEAL]

	
Secretary
§ 1508.885 May the debarring official extend a debarment? ( a ) Yes, the debarring official may extend a debarment for an additional period, if that official determines that an extension is necessary to protect the public interest.
( b ) However, the debarring official may not extend a debarment solely on the basis of the facts and circumstances upon which the initial debarment action was based.
( c ) If the debarring official decides that a debarment for an additional period is necessary, the debarring official must follow the applicable procedures in this subpart, and subpart F of this part, to extend the debarment.
#### § 96.11 [Reserved]
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


## 136538 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136538 COA: 276997 Oakland CC: 2006-210821-FC SAM REYNOLD MCCARTY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 3, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0828 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2008

Clerk
SERVED: SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF FEDERAL EXPRESS DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-3306 (Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2015NM720020) has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST- BYU.S. MAIL ORIGINAL 

### & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001

Greg G. Stofko, 

### Respondent's Counsel SeniorAttorney Regulatory Affairs Federal Express ONE COPY

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 950 Washington, D.C. 20006 TEL: 202-393-9285 greg.stofko@fedex.com DavidF. Shayne, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney Enforcement Division, Western Team Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Ave., S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-1847 FAX: 425-227-1007 Hon. J.E. Sullivan,

### Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2015-3306 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited cowier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.**-2~**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Form 10-Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001020828
<NAME> ROSLYN BANCORP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          21,124
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                22,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,226,557
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         292,382
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           290,123
<LOANS>                                        471,668
<ALLOWANCE>                                     22,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,090,349
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,585,289
<SHORT-TERM>                                   215,310
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             56,056
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     233,694
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,090,349
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 28,386
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               66,361
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,013
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                95,760
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              48,759
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,401
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           43,359
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      700
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (463)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 25,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,359
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      15,591
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,591
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.41
<LOANS-NON>                                     10,022
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  5,439
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                23,350
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,957
<RECOVERIES>                                        80
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               22,173
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         22,173
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

CARLOS SERRANO, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50098

D.C. No. CR 07-118-CAS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 10, 2010

Pasadena, California

Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Though the district court erred in overruling defense counsel’s objection

when the prosecutor asked Carlos Serrano during cross-examination whether

Postal Service Inspector Kugel was “lying,” United States v. Harrison, 585 F.3d

1155, 1158 (9th Cir. 2009), the government has satisfied its burden of establishing

FILED

DEC 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

harmlessness, United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997)

(per curiam), by demonstrating that it is not “more probable than not that the

alleged misconduct affected the jury’s verdict,” United States v. Nobari, 574 F.3d

1065, 1082 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Simtob, 901 F.2d 799, 806

(9th Cir. 1990)) (internal quotation marks omitted). First, the government

provided ample evidence that Serrano knew that he was participating in a

fraudulent transaction, United States v. Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th

Cir. 2005); see also Nobari, 574 F.3d at 1082, including Serrano’s sworn

statement, emails instructing him to make misrepresentations to the bank,

documents in which Serrano certified the veracity of false information, and

testimonial evidence that he employed aliases and opened a bank account for the

sole purpose of depositing funds from the transaction. 

Moreover, because Serrano responded to the government’s improper

question by stating that Kugel was telling the truth, the question did not pit

Serrano’s credibility against Kugel’s, a fact which further undercuts Serrano’s

claim that the improper question was harmful. See Harrison, 585 F.3d at 1159;

United States v. Combs, 379 F.3d 564, 573 (9th Cir. 2004). Contrary to Serrano’s

argument, the case cannot be reduced to a credibility contest between Serrano and

Kugel as to the veracity of Serrano’s statement that he knew “from day one” that
3

the transaction was suspicious, because the government needed only to establish

that Serrano knew during the course of the transaction that he was participating in

fraudulent activities. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1344(2). 

Finally, the court advised the jury that it was the “sole and exclusive judge[]

of the credibility of each of the witnesses called to testify in this case.” See

Harrison, 585 F.3d at 1159–60. The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s

instructions. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540–41 (1993). 

AFFIRMED.
#### § 1000.334 May Indian tribes, TDHEs, or HUD challenge the data from the U.S. Decennial Census or provide an alternative source of data?

Yes. Provided that the data are gathered, evaluated, and presented in a manner acceptable to HUD and that the standards for acceptability are consistently applied throughout the Country.
### §5791d. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5791d was editorially reclassified as section 20505 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 910.2 Ex parte communications. ( a ) “Ex parte communications” are oral or written communications between the Board or its staff and an interested party to a proceeding which are made without providing the other parties a chance to participate.
( b ) Ex parte communications concerning the merits of any matter which has or may come before the Board for adjudication or which would otherwise contravene the rules regarding written submissions are prohibited until the Board renders a final decision. Any communication made in contravention of this rule shall be made a part of the record and an opportunty for rebuttal allowed. If the communication was oral, a memorandum stating the substance of the discussion shall be placed in the record.
( c ) This rule does not apply to communications concerning such matters as the status of a case, the methods for transmitting evidence to the Board, and other procedural matters which do not concern the merits of any matter before the Board for adjudication and which do not otherwise contravene the rules regarding written submissions.
[50 FR 31358, Aug. 2, 1985. Redesignated at 56 FR 55460, Oct. 28, 1991]