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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 141 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 141

 To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the 
       name of the Senate in United States v. Durenberger, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 6 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

    Mr. Mitchell (for himself and Mr. Dole) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To direct the Senate Legal Counsel to appear as amicus curiae in the 
       name of the Senate in United States v. Durenberger, et al.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Durenberger, et al., Cr. No. 3-93-65, 
        pending in the United States District Court for the District of 
        Minnesota, Senator Dave Durenberger is charged with conspiring to submit 
        false claims to the Senate and his codefendants are charged with making 
        false statements to the Select Committee on Ethics in affidavits that 
        Senator Durenberger submitted to the Committee;
Whereas, this case places in issue Senator Durenberger's privilege under the 
        Speech or Debate Clause, Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the 
        Constitution, to be free from questioning in any other place about his 
        communications to the Ethics Committee; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(c), 706(a), 709(l), and 713(a) of the Ethics 
        in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(c), 288e(a), 288h(1), and 
        288l(a) (1988), the Senate may direct its Counsel to appear as amicus 
        curiae in the name of the Senate in any legal action which places in 
        issue the powers and responsibilities of Congress under the 
        Constitution, including the privilege of Members to be free from 
        questioning in any other place about any speech or debate: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to appear as 
amicus curiae in the name of the Senate in United States v. 
Durenberger, et al., to defend the constitutional privilege of Senators 
under the Speech or Debate Clause to be free from questioning in any 
other place about their communications to the Select Committee on 
Ethics.

                                 <all>
```
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTASAR Flight Trial 2: Assessment of Air Traffic Controller Acceptability of TASAR RequestsIn support of the Flight Trial (FT-2) of NASA's prototype of the Traffic Aware Strategic Aircrew Requests (TASAR) concept, observations were conducted at the air traffic facilities to identify and assess the main factors that affect the acceptability of pilot requests by air traffic controllers. Two observers shadowed air traffic controllers at the Atlanta (ZTL) and Jacksonville (ZJX) air traffic control centers as the test flight pilot made pre-scripted requests to invoke acceptability issues and then they interviewed the observed and other controllers voluntarily. Fifty controllers were interviewed with experience ranging from one to thirty-five years. All interviewed controllers were enthusiastic about the technology and accounting for sector boundaries in pilot requests, particularly if pilots can be made aware of high workload situations. All interviewed controllers accept more than fifty percent of pilot requests; forty percent of them reject less than ten percent of requests. The most common reason for rejecting requests is conflicting with traffic followed by violating letters of agreement (LOAs) and negatively impacting neighboring sector workload, major arrival and departure flows and flow restrictions. Thirty-six requests were made during the test, eight of which were rejected due to: the aircraft already handed off to another sector, violating LOA, opposing traffic, intruding into an active special use airspace (SUA), intruding into another center, weather, and unfamiliarity with the requested waypoint. Nine requests were accepted with delay mostly because the controller needed to locate unfamiliar waypoints or to coordinate with other controllers.Document ID20160010099Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsIdris, Husni*(Engility Corp. Billerica, MA, United States)*Enea, Gabriele*(Engility Corp. Billerica, MA, United States)*Date AcquiredAugust 5, 2016Publication DateJune 1, 2016Subject CategoryAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberNASA/CR-2016-219215NF1676L-24629Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 330693.04.30.07.05CONTRACT_GRANT: NNL12AA06CDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20160010099.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41356

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

JAVIER GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-1491-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Gonzalez-Gonzalez was convicted of being found in the United 

States following deportation. The judgment was entered on February 19, 2014. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 14, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41356 Document: 00513115318 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2015
No. 14-41356

2

No earlier than November 9, 2014, Gonzalez-Gonzalez filed a pro se notice of 

appeal and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

The district court denied leave to proceed IFP, observing that the notice 

of appeal was untimely and that the time to seek an extension of the appeal 

period had expired on April 4, 2014. Gonzalez-Gonzalez’s appointed counsel 

has moved for leave to withdraw, and Gonzalez-Gonzalez has responded.

The time limit to appeal in a criminal case is not jurisdictional and may 

be waived. United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388–89 (5th Cir. 2007). 

Nevertheless, a defendant is not entitled to have his untimeliness disregarded. 

United States v. Leijano-Cruz, 473 F.3d 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2006). After reviewing the record, counsel’s motion, and Gonzalez-Gonzalez’s response, we conclude that the appeal is frivolous. 

The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as 

frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Gonzalez-Gonzalez’s motion to remand is 

DENIED.

 Case: 14-41356 Document: 00513115318 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2015
§ 1.585-3 Special rules. ( a ) *Treatment of reserve.* For taxable years beginning after July 11, 1969, if a financial institution to which section 585 and § 1.585-1 apply establishes a reserve pursuant to section 585(a) (or, for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1987, section 166(c)), any bad debt in respect of a loan (whether or not such loan is an eligible loan) must be charged to the reserve for losses on loans provided for by § 1.585-1 for the taxable year in which the bad debt occurs. For such a year, any recovery of a bad debt previously charged to the reserve account in respect of a loan (whether or not such loan is an eligible loan) must be credited to such reserve in the taxable year of recovery regardless of whether such credit causes the reserve to exceed the permissible amount. If, as a result of net recoveries during the taxable year, the reserve balance exceeds the permissible amount, a taxpayer is not required to report the excess as taxable income. In such a case, the excess over the otherwise permissible amount in the reserve account precludes current reasonable additions to the reserve and may affect future reasonable additions. Recoveries of bad debts which were not charged to the reserve shall not be credited to such reserve, but shall be treated as taxable income subject to the provisions of section 111. No item other than a loan as defined in § 1.585-2 (e)(2) shall be charged to the reserve for losses on loans.
( b ) *Accounting for reserve.* A financial institution to which section 585 and § 1.585-1 apply which establishes a reserve pursuant to section 585(a) (or, for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1987, section 166(c)) shall establish and maintain a permanent record of such reserve. Copies of Federal income tax returns and amended returns with attached schedules satisfy the requirements of this paragraph provided that such returns are permanently maintained by the financial institution and the balance of the reserve for losses on loans established pursuant to section 585(a) (or former section 166(c)) can be readily reconciled with the reservefor losses on loans maintained by the financial institution for financial statement purposes. The requirements of this paragraph would also be satisfied if a financial institution establishes and maintains a permanent subsidiary ledger reflecting an account for the reserve for losses on loans established pursuant to section 585(a) (or former section 166(c)) provided the balance in such account can be readily reconciled with the balance of the reserve for losses on loans for financial statement purposes maintained in any other ledger. The permanent records maintained pursuant to this section must reflect any changes in the amount initially added to the reserve for losses on loans and the amount finally determined by the taxpayer to be a reasonable addition to the reserve for losses on loans.
(Sec. 585(b)(4), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (83 Stat. 618; (26 U.S.C. 585(b)(4))))
[T.D. 7532, 43 FR 3114, Jan. 23, 1978, as amended by T.D. 8513, 58 FR 68757, Dec. 29, 1993]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              The Schedule  contains  summary 
                              financial information extracted 
                              from the  financial  statements 
                              for  Freedom  Tax  Credit  Plus 
                              L.P.  and is  qualified  in its 
                              entirety by  reference  to such 
                              financial statements            
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000854926                  
<NAME>                        Freedom Tax Credit Plus L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1                 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  APR-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,555,765
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,351,283
<PP&E>                                         143,029,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,067,123
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,026,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,303,656
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,722,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,026,530
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,724,070
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,828,418
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,437,644
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,541,992)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,541,992)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (34.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
                                     
                                               

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7461 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7461

   To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit providers of 
broadband internet access service from charging consumers above certain 
                     amounts for certain equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2024

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit providers of 
broadband internet access service from charging consumers above certain 
                     amounts for certain equipment.

    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 ``Broadband Equipment Rental Reform 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CHARGING CONSUMERS ABOVE CERTAIN AMOUNTS FOR 
              CERTAIN RENTED EQUIPMENT.

    Section 642 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 562) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
    ``(d) Prohibition on Charging Consumers Above Certain Amounts for 
Certain Equipment.--A provider of fixed broadband internet access 
service that enters into a contract with a consumer after the date of 
the enactment of this paragraph for the provision of such service may 
not charge the consumer for renting, leasing, or otherwise providing to 
the consumer equipment (such as a router or modem) employed on the 
premises of the consumer for the provision of such service, if the 
consumer has paid to the provider through monthly rental fees the price 
offered to the consumer by the provider (at the time the contract was 
entered into) for purchasing the equipment from the provider.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 1.45-0 Table of contents.

This section lists the table of contents for §§ 1.45-1 through 1.45-12.

## §§ 1.45-1—1.45-5 [Reserved]

## § 1.45-6 Increased credit amount.

(a) In general.

(b) Qualified facility requirements.

(c) Definition of nameplate capacity for purposes of determining maximum net output under section 45(b)(6)(B)(i).

(d) Applicability date.

## § 1.45-7 Prevailing wage requirements.

(a) Prevailing wage requirements.

(b) Wage determinations.

(c) Curing a failure to satisfy the prevailing wage requirements.

(d) Definitions.

(e) Applicability date.

## § 1.45-8 Apprenticeship requirements.

(a) Apprenticeship requirements.

(b) Labor hours requirement.

(c) Ratio requirement.

(d) Participation requirement.

(e) Examples.

(f) Exceptions to the apprenticeship requirements.

(g) Definitions.

(h) Applicability date.

## §§ 1.45-9—1.45-11 [Reserved]

## § 1.45-12 Recordkeeping and reporting.

(a) In general.

(b) Recordkeeping for the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements.

(c) Recordkeeping for the prevailing wage requirements.

(d) Recordkeeping for the apprenticeship requirements.

(e) Satisfaction of the recordkeeping requirements.

(f) Applicability date.
# C_2014380EN.01002702.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/27

---

Action brought on 24 July 2014 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-73/14)

2014/C 380/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Europol

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract and compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the implied decision rejecting the request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, seeking to obtain the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff at Grade A7, brought on 6 December 2013, and the Director of Europol’s response to the complaint, dated 14 April 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied decision rejecting the request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, seeking to obtain the extension of the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff at Grade A7, brought on 6 December 2013, and the Director of Europol’s response to the complaint, dated 14 April 2014;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 1 5 45  124 by way of damages for the material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 1 5 45  124 by way of damages for the material harm suffered;

| — | order the defendant to pay EUR 40  000 by way of damages for the non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay EUR 40  000 by way of damages for the non-material harm suffered;

| — | order Europol to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Europol to pay the costs of the proceedings.

---
§ 1.267A-7 Applicability dates. ( a ) *General rule.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, §§ 1.267A-1 through 1.267A-6 apply to taxable years ending on or after December 20, 2018, provided that such taxable years begin after December 31, 2017. However, taxpayers may apply the regulations in §§ 1.267A-1 through 1.267A-6 in their entirety (including by taking into account paragraph (b) of this section) for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and ending before December 20, 2018. In lieu of applying the regulations in §§ 1.267A-1 through 1.267A-6 (including paragraph (b) of this section), taxpayers may apply the provisions matching §§ 1.267A-1 through 1.267A-6 (including by taking into account the provision matching paragraph (b) of this section) from the Internal Revenue Bulletin (IRB) 2019-03 (*https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb19-03.pdf*) in their entirety for all taxable years ending on or before April 8, 2020.
( b ) *Special rules.* The following special rules apply regarding applicability dates: ( 1 ) Sections 1.267A-2(a)(4) (payments pursuant to interest-free loans and similar arrangements), (b) (disregarded payments), (c) (deemed branch payments), and (e) (branch mismatch transactions), 1.267A-4 (imported mismatch rule), and 1.267A-5(b)(5) (structured payments), except as provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, apply to taxable years beginning on or after December 20, 2018.
( 2 ) Section 1.267A-5(a)(20) (defining structured arrangement), as well as the portions of §§ 1.267A-1 through 1.267A-3 that relate to structured arrangements and that are not otherwise described in paragraph (b) of this section, apply to taxable years beginning on or after December 20, 2018. However, in the case of a specified payment made pursuant to an arrangement entered into before December 22, 2017, § 1.267A-5(a)(20), and the portions of §§ 1.267A-1 through 1.267A-3 that relate to structured arrangements and that are not otherwise described in paragraph (b) of this section, apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020.
( 3 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, the rules provided in § 1.267A-5(a)(12)(ii) (swaps with significant nonperiodic payments) apply to notional principal contracts entered into on or after April 8, 2021. However, taxpayers may apply the rules provided in § 1.267A-5(a)(12)(ii) to notional principal contracts entered into before April 8, 2021.
( 4 ) For a notional principal contract entered into before April 8, 2021, the interest equivalent rules provided in § 1.267A-5(b)(5)(ii)(B) (applied without regard to the references to § 1.267A-5(a)(12)(ii)) apply to a notional principal contract entered into on or after April 8, 2020.
( 5 ) Section 1.267A-5(b)(5)(ii)(B) (interest equivalent rules) applies to transactions entered into on or after April 8, 2020.
[T.D. 9896, 85 FR 19836, Apr. 8, 2020, as amended by 85 FR 48651, Aug. 12, 2020]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000854883
<NAME>                        Edd Helms Group, Inc.

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                         386,071
<SECURITIES>                                   86,970
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,903,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (67,582)
<INVENTORY>                                    543,724
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,149,123
<PP&E>                                         2,599,876
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,805,915)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,226,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,287,738
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       126,740
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,673,708
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,226,768
<SALES>                                        3,169,664
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,169,664
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,363,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             17438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                188,141
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            188,141
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   188,141
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .01


</TABLE>