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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8147 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8147

               To repeal the Corporate Transparency Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2024

Mr. Davidson (for himself, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Edwards, Mr. 
  Norman, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Posey, Mr. Hern, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mrs. 
  Fischbach, Mr. Fallon, and Mr. Armstrong) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To repeal the Corporate Transparency Act.

    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 ``Repealing Big Brother Overreach 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    (a) In General.--The Corporate Transparency Act (title LXIV of 
division F of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283; 134 Stat. 
4604)) and the amendments made by that Act are repealed.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Title 31, United States Code, is amended--
                    (A) in section 5321(a)--
                            (i) in paragraph (1), by striking 
                        ``sections 5314, 5315, and 5336'' each place 
                        the term appears and inserting ``sections 5314 
                        and 5315''; and
                            (ii) in paragraph (6), by striking 
                        ``(except section 5336)'' each place the term 
                        appears; and
                    (B) in section 5322, by striking ``section 5315, 
                5324, or 5336'' each place the term appears and 
                inserting ``section 5315 or 5324''.
            (2) Title LXV of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 
        (division F of the of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National 
        Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-
        283; 134 Stat. 4604)) is amended--
                    (A) by repealing section 6502 (134 Stat. 4626); and
                    (B) in section 6509 (134 Stat. 4633)--
                            (i) by striking ``(a) In General.--
                        Subsection (l)'' and inserting ``Subsection 
                        (l)''; and
                            (ii) by striking subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Glade M. Knight, certify that:



|1. |  | I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc.; and
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this amended quarterly 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.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: August 27, 2003 |  |  | 
|                      |  |  |
#### Ralph STEWART *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5514

455 S. W. 2d 100

Opinion delivered June 15, 1970

*Bethell, Stocks, Callaway & King,*for appellant.

*Joe Purcell,*Attorney General; *Mike Wilson,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The appellant, age 45, was charged with the larceny of a used Volkswagen automobile. He was found guilty and sentenced to four years imprisonment. The only point raised in his motion for a new trial is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. The argument is that the proof established embezzlement rather than larceny.

On February 19, 1969, Stewart went to a Fort Smith automobile dealer’s place of business and inquired about buying the car in question. A salesman first accompanied Stewart upon a trial ride in the vehicle. Then the salesman, satisfied with Stewart’s driving ability, allowed him to take the car out by himself. Stewart stated that he was just going to try the car out and would be back shortly.

*988Stewart actually drove off in the car and kept it for almost six weeks. He was apprehended with the vehicle in his possession at Clarksville on April 1. At that time Stewart was living in Russellville and working there. He testified that he intended to go back to Fort Smith and buy the car when he had raised enough money to do so.

Upon the facts as we have outlined them the jury could properly have found what is usually called larceny by trick, which the judge explained in his instructions to the jury. As we pointed out in *Hall*v. *State,*161 Ark. 453, 257 S. W. 61 (1923), if one hires a horse with the present intention of stealing it, he is guilty of larceny. In the case at bar the jury could certainly have found that from the outset Stewart had the requisite intent to commit larceny.

Stewart’s court-appointed attorneys also argue two contentions not preserved in the motion for a new trial and therefore not available on appeal. Counsel insist in their reply brief that the requirement that each point be carried forward in the motion for a new trial is highly technical and should not be insisted upon, especially with respect to attorneys who customarily handle civil cases only.

We find no merit in that contention. We are not at liberty to disregard our statutes, which for more than a hundred years have required motions for new trial in criminal cases. Ark. Stat. Ann., Title 43, Ch. 22 (Repl. 1964). In fact, a - similar requirement was applicable to civil cases at law until the passage of Act 555 of 1953, only seventeen years ago. Our reports contain hundreds of cases, both civil and criminal, in which a contention has been rejected on appeal- because it was not included in the motion for -a new trial. In the case at hand counsel certainly knew that such a motion was required, for the-y promptly filed one on the very day that the verdict was returned. We are not prepared to say that counsel who appreciate the necessity for filing a motion should nevertheless be excused- for not *989knowing, or for not attempting to find out, what the motion should contain.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,545,553
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,760,861
<PP&E>                                       1,528,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                 667,502
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,680,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,437,478
<BONDS>                                        117,806
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        240
<COMMON>                                        11,603
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,531,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,680,506
<SALES>                                         98,407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                98,407
<CGS>                                          736,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  736,401
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             322,717
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,249,983)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,249,983)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,249,983)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.10)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         637,736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               891,728
<PP&E>                                       3,320,630
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,433,827
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,559,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,967,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,662,764
<COMMON>                                        17,452
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,892,173
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,559,511
<SALES>                                        372,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               372,494
<CGS>                                           13,455
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,455
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,475,634
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,097,989
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (19,048,727)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (19,048,727)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 78,864
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (18,969,863)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.14)



</TABLE>
#### § 1.183-3 Election to postpone determination with respect to the presumption described in section 183(d). [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

REGINALD DONALD CAMPBELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-93-138, CA-96-61-3-P)

Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Donald Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

habeas motion, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110

Stat. 1214. 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. United States v. Campbell, Nos.

CR-93-138; CA-96-61-3-P (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 1996). We further deny

Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10Q
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             442
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,408
<INVENTORY>                                      3,688
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,287
<PP&E>                                          89,267
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,587
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,593
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,036
<OTHER-SE>                                     (26,637)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,989
<SALES>                                          4,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,649
<CGS>                                            3,873
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    25
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,391
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,934)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,934)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,934)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     ($0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($0.19)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MEDICAL INCOME PROPERTIES 2A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,798,254
<SECURITIES>                                 2,296,647
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,468,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                   195,242
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,085,901
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,630,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,094,188
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,563,148 <F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,630,999
<SALES>                                      5,544,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,550,954
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,980,626
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               137,625
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            428,322
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              6,682,234
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,110,556
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> REPRESENT TOTAL PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL INCLUDING NET INCOME
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4927

_____________________________

MOROCCO LAVAN LEWIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.

October 4, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
§ 1.383-0 Effective date. ( a ) The regulations in this part under section 383 of the Code (other than the regulations described in paragraph (b) of this section) reflect the amendments made to sections 382 and 383 by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and the amendments made to section 382 by Public Law 115-97 (2017). See § 1.383-1(j) for effective date rules.
( b ) Sections 1.383-1A, 1.383-2A, and 1.383-3A do not reflect the amendments made to sections 382 and 383 by the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
[T.D. 8352, 56 FR 29434, June 27, 1991, as amended by T.D. 9905, 85 FR 56837, Sept. 14, 2020]
No. 43588.

May 1, 1939

#### *James A. Greenwald, Jr.*

■ Navy pay; effective date of retirement. In accordance-with its opinion of January 9, 1939, in the case, *cmte,*p. 264,. the Court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $925.57, on report from the General Accounting Office.

*623In the following cases involving claims to recover rental allowances while serving in China, judgments were rendered as indicated, on authority of *Montague*v. *United*States, 79 C. Cls. 624, and *Bartholomew*v. *United*States, 84 C. Cls. 631.
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.5220 Ear, nose, and throat drug administration device. ( a ) *Identification.* An ear, nose, and throat drug administration device is one of a group of ear, nose, and throat devices intended specifically to administer medicinal substances to treat ear, nose, and throat disorders. These instruments include the powder blower, dropper, ear wick, manual nebulizer pump, and nasal inhaler.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 874.9. If the device is not labeled or otherwise represented as sterile, it is exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[51 FR 40389, Nov. 6, 1986, as amended at 59 FR 63009, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38801, July 25, 2001]
# C_2015034EN.01004402.xml

| 2.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/44

---

Action brought on 9 December 2014 — Stagecoach Group v OHIM (MEGABUS.COM)

(Case T-805/14)

(2015/C 034/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stagecoach Group plc (Perth, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Jacobs, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘MEGABUS.COM’ — Application for registration No 1 1 1 31  216

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2014 in Case R 1894/2013-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Order Community trade mark No 1 1 1 31  216‘MEGABUS.COM’ be registered for all goods and services, or partially registered for some goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Community trade mark No 1 1 1 31  216‘MEGABUS.COM’ be registered for all goods and services, or partially registered for some goods and services;

| — | Order Community trade mark No 1 1 1 31  216‘MEGABUS.COM’, in the alternative, be registered at least partially in respect of ‘provision of passenger transport services’ for which evidence of acquired distinctiveness has been shown; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Community trade mark No 1 1 1 31  216‘MEGABUS.COM’, in the alternative, be registered at least partially in respect of ‘provision of passenger transport services’ for which evidence of acquired distinctiveness has been shown;

| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---