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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9761 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an increased dollar 

limitation for section 179 property placed in service in the trade or 

business of farming. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2024 

Mr. LOPEZ 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 an 

increased dollar limitation for section 179 property 

placed in service in the trade or business of farming. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASED SECTION 179 PROPERTY LIMIT FOR 

4 FARMING PROPERTY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 179(b) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating para7 graph (6) as paragraph (7) and by inserting after para8 graph (5) the following new paragraph: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9761 IH

1 ‘‘(6) INCREASED LIMITATION FOR FARMING

2 PROPERTY.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in the 

3 case of any section 179 property placed in service by 

4 the taxpayer in the trade or business of farming, the 

5 aggregate cost of such property which may be taken 

6 into account under subsection (a) for the taxable 

7 year shall not be less than an amount equal to 

8 $1,500,000, reduced by the cost of any other section 

9 179 property which— 

10 ‘‘(A) is taken into account by the taxpayer 

11 under subsection (a) for the taxable year, and 

12 ‘‘(B) is placed in service by the taxpayer in 

13 a trade or business other than farming.’’. 

14 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 179(b)(2) 

15 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘limitation under 

16 paragraph (1)’’ and inserting ‘‘limitations under para17 graphs (1) and (6)’’. 

18 (c) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—Section 179(b)(7) of 

19 such Code (as redesignated by subsection (a)) is amended 

20 by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) 

21 and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 

22 subparagraph: 

23 ‘‘(B) FARMING PROPERTY LIMITATION.— 

24 In the case of any taxable year beginning after 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 9761 IH

1 2025, the dollar amount in paragraph (6) shall 

2 be increased by an amount equal to— 

3 ‘‘(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

4 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de5 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal6 endar year in which the taxable year be7 gins, determined by substituting ‘calendar 

8 year 2024’ for ‘calendar year 2016’ in sub9 paragraph (A)(ii) thereof.’’. 

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

11 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

12 December 31, 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### WINDNAGLE, Respondent, v. HORTON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by John R. Windnagle against Ezra L. Horton.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Lester Mitchell, Jr., Appellant, v Deidra Mitchell, Respondent.

&emdash;In an action in which a judgment of divorce has been granted to the defendant, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 22, 1978, as declined to exercise jurisdiction with respect to his motion to modify the provisions of the judgment of divorce with respect to child custody. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. In view of all the circumstances, including the fact that (1) the infant issue of the marriage has been living with her paternal grandmother in New Jersey for the past four years pursuant to the judgment of divorce, (2) the plaintiff now resides in New Jersey, and (3) the defendant has already commenced an action in New Jersey seeking permanent custody and plaintiff and his mother have appeared in that action and have counterclaimed for the exact relief requested herein, it is our view that Special Term did not abuse its discretion in declining to entertain jurisdiction *(Gise v Gise,*54 AD2d 684; *Bruno v Borak,*52 AD2d 800; *Anonymous*v *Anonymous,*62 Misc 2d 758; see, also, Domestic Relations Law, § 75-c, subd 5; §~ 75-d, 75-h). Hopkins, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., *concur.*
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 20

- 1664

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Antonio Escobar

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________

Submitted: November 30 , 2020 Filed: December 3, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Escobar appeals after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of
a firearm . T he district court 1 sentenced him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to 180 months in prison.

1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.- 2

- Counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Escobar ’ s prior drug convictions do not qualify as predicate offenses for purposes of the ACCA, and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. This court concludes that the district court did not plainly err in sentencing Escobar as an armed career criminal. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (felon in possession who has three previous convictions for “ serious drug
offense” shall be imprisoned not less than 15 years); United States v. Coleman , 918 F.3d 592, 593 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review); United States v. Winston , 850 F.3d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 2017) (to demonstrate plain error defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is clear or obvious under current law, (3) which affected his substantial rights, and (4) seriously affects fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings). T he sentence is not substantively unreasonable because the record reflects that the district court properly considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) , and imposed the statutory minimum sentence. See United States v.

Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461

- 62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (abuse of discretion occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing appropriate factor) ; United States v. St. Claire , 831 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2016) (within

- Guidelines sentence is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal) ; United
States v. Woods , 717 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir. 2013) (statutory minimum sentence was

not s ubstantively unreasonable). Th is court has independently reviewed the record
under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and found no other nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AND CONDENSED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         103,420
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  172,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,620
<INVENTORY>                                    148,911
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               460,411
<PP&E>                                         677,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                 343,570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 953,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          217,482
<BONDS>                                        209,952
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,984
<OTHER-SE>                                     349,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   953,804
<SALES>                                      1,100,185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,112,365
<CGS>                                          720,980
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  720,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 98,252
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,722
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,722
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.03
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.1711-1 Sealing of shaft openings.

Shaft openings required to be sealed under § 75.1711 shall be effectively capped or filled. Filling shall be for the entire depth of the shaft and, for the first 50 feet from the bottom of the coalbed, the fill shall consist of incombustible material. Caps consisting of a 6-inch thick concrete cap or other equivalent means may be used for sealing. Caps shall be equipped with a vent pipe at least 2 inches in diameter extending for a distance of at least 15 feet above the surface of the shaft.
#### New York Water Service Corp., Respondent, v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission, Appellant.

On call of calendar, oral motion of Incorporated Village of West Haverstraw to file and serve a typed brief as *amicus curiae*granted. Nolan, ,P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
                OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADOPTED
            PUSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the annual report of Simclar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
L. Watts, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purpose of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
of the United States Code, that, to my knowledge:

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

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

         This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                             /s/ David L. Watts
                          -----------------------------------------------------
                          David L. Watts, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
                          Simclar, Inc.
                          March 30, 2004
Editorial Note on Part 783
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54956, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 783 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93330, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 783.25 Cross sections, maps, and plans. ( a ) The application shall include cross sections, maps, and plans showing— ( 1 ) Elevations and locations of test borings and core samplings;
( 2 ) Elevations and locations of monitoring stations used to gather data on water quality and quantity, fish and wildlife, and air quality, if required, in preparation of the application.
( 3 ) Nature, depth, and thickness of the coal seams to be mined, any coal or rider seams above the seam to be mined, each stratum of the overburden, and the stratum immediately below the lowest coal seam to be mined;
( 4 ) All coal crop lines and the strike and dip of the coal to be mined within the proposed permit area;
( 5 ) Location and extent of known workings of active, inactive, or abandoned underground mines, including mine openings to the surface within the proposed permit and adjacent areas;
( 6 ) Location and extent of sub-surface water, if encountered, within the proposed permit or adjacent areas, including, but not limited to areal and vertical distribution of aquifers, and portrayal of seasonal differences of head in different aquifers on cross-sections and contour maps;
( 7 ) Location of surface water bodies such as streams, lakes, ponds, springs, constructed or natural drains, and irrigation ditches within the proposed permit and adjacent areas;
( 8 ) Location and extent of existing or previously surface-mined areas within the proposed permit area;
( 9 ) Location and dimensions of existing areas of spoil, waste, coal development waste, and non-coal waste disposal, dams, embankments, other impoundments, and water treatment and air pollution control facilities within the proposed permit area;
( 10 ) Location, and depth if available, of gas and oil wells within the proposed permit area and water wells in the permit area and adjacent areas;
( b ) Cross-sections, maps and plans included in a permit application as required by this section shall be prepared by, or under the direction of, and certified by a qualified, registered, professional engineer, a professional geologist, or in any State which authorizes land surveyors to prepare and certify such cross sections, maps and plans, a qualified, registered, professional, land surveyor, with assistance from experts in related fields such as landscape architecture, and shall be updated as required by the regulatory authority.
[44 FR 15363, Mar. 13, 1979, as amended at 45 FR 51550, Aug. 4, 1980; 50 FR 16199, Apr. 24, 1985; 59 FR 27937, May 27, 1994; 81 FR 93330, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54956, Nov. 17, 2017] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: For a document suspending § 783.25(a)(3), (a)(8) and (a)(9) (previously § 783.25(c), (h), and (i)), see 45 FR 51548, Aug. 4, 1980.
#### In the Matter of Donald Koerner et al., Respondents, v Board of Education, Deer Park Union Free School District, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant In a CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel appellant to comply with the provisions of article 7 of the Public Officers Law, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered April 7, 1977, which granted the petition to the extent of directing the appellant to comply with, and observe the requirements of, article 7. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The weekly planning sessions of the appellant are patently meetings within the meaning of the Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law, art 7) *(Matter of Orange County Pub. v Council of City of Newburgh,*60 AD2d 409). We note that certain subjects raised at the appellant’s planning sessions fall within the areas covered by section 100 of the Public Officers Law. As to such subjects, the appellant may conduct executive sessions in accordance with that statute (see *Matter of Orange County Pub. v Council of City of Newburgh,*n 1, p 413, *supra).*Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of SEDONA Corporation on Form 10-K
for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Annual Report"), I, Marco A. Emrich, Chief
Executive Officer of SEDONA Corporation certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
SEDONA Corporation.

Dated:  May 11, 2004                       /s/ MARCO A. EMRICH
                                           -------------------
                                           Marco A. Emrich
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 32



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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of
Double Eagle Petroleum Co. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004,
each of Stephen H. Hollis, the Chief Executive Officer, and David C. Milholm,
the Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief: (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:  August 13, 2004                        /s/  Stephen H. Hollis
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Stephen H. Hollis
                                               Chief Executive Officer

                                               /s/ David C. Milholm
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               David C. Milholm
                                               Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Sol Endig v. Robert F. Wagner et al.

Motion for an enlargement of time denied. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
(May 10, 1960)

#### Albert Menna et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 33466.)

— Decision of this court, handed down March 18, 1960 (10 A D 2d 753), amended by striking out the words “ with appropriate interest.” Order settled and signed. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
### §§541 to 546. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 541 to 546, act Aug. 10, 1950, ch. 673, §§2–7, 64 Stat. 435–437, terminated not later than ten years after Apr. 1, 1950. See Effective and Termination Date note below.

Section 541 related to Congressional declaration of policy.

Section 542 related to production program of abacá.

Section 543 related to administration.

Section 544 related to financing.

Section 545 related to disposal of property.

Section 546 related to reports to Congress.

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

#### Effective and Termination Dates

Act Aug. 10, 1950, ch. 673, §8, 64 Stat. 437, provided that this chapter become effective Apr. 1, 1950, and remain effective for ten years thereafter, unless Congress or President direct earlier termination of operations, and for such further period as necessary to earliest practicable liquidation of operations under this chapter.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the quarterly report of The Dewey Electronics
Corporation (the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen P. Krill, Treasurer of the
Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS 1350, as adopted pursuant
to SS 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Corporation.

/s/ Stephen P. Krill
Stephen P. Krill, Treasurer
Date:  May 12, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The Dewey Electronics Corporation and will be retained
by The Dewey Electronics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
exchange commission or its staff upon request.
§ 846.12 When an individual civil penalty may be assessed. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Office may assess an individual civil penalty against any corporate director, officer or agent of a corporate permittee who knowingly and willfully authorized, ordered or carried out a violation, failure or refusal.
( b ) The Office shall not assess an individual civil penalty in situations resulting from a permit violation by a corporate permittee until a cessation order has been issued by the Office to the corporate permittee for the violation, and the cessation order has remained unabated for 30 days.
### §100303. Effect on other laws

This chapter and sections 100101(a), 100751(a), 100752, 100753, and 102101 of this title do not affect or modify section 100902(a) of this title.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3097.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 100303 | 16 U.S.C. 4. | Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, §4, 39 Stat. 536. |

Section
###### Editorial Note on Part 816

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 54979, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 816 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93392, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 816.1 Scope.

This part sets forth the minimum environmental protection performance standards to be adopted and implemented under regulatory programs for surface mining activities.

[44 FR 15395, Mar. 13, 1979, as amended at 81 FR 93392, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54979, Nov. 17, 2017]