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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 68 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 68

  Expressing the sense of the Congress that Federal tax law should be 
   clarified to allow a reasonable charitable tax deduction for the 
reasonable and necessary expenses of Alaska Native subsistence whaling 
                               captains.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 1995

  Mr. Young of Alaska submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress that Federal tax law should be 
   clarified to allow a reasonable charitable tax deduction for the 
reasonable and necessary expenses of Alaska Native subsistence whaling 
                               captains.
Whereas there is a need to preserve the traditional lifeways in certain Alaska 
        Native villages; and
Whereas a prohibitive financial burden has been placed upon Alaska Native 
        subsistence whaling captains by international obligations ratified by 
        the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that Federal tax law should be 
clarified to allow a reasonable tax deduction for the reasonable and 
necessary expenses of Alaska Native subsistence whaling captains 
related to their conduct of the centuries-old subsistence whaling hunt, 
which should be treated for such purposes as a charitable contribution 
for the benefit of their native community, donations to which are 
deductible under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                 <all>
```
Amend #2, Florida Choice Bank Officers' and Employees' Stock Option Plan



 Exhibit 10.42B 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO FLORIDA CHOICE BANK 
 OFFICERS’ AND EMPLOYEES’ STOCK OPTION PLAN

 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE FLORIDA CHOICE BANK OFFICERS’ AND
EMPLOYEES’ STOCK OPTION PLAN (the “Amendment”) is made as of the 1st day of May, 2004. 
 WITNESSETH THAT: 
 WHEREAS, the Board
of Directors and the shareholders of Florida Choice Bank (the “Bank”) have authorized, adopted and approved an Officers’ and Employees’ Stock Option Plan, as amended (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Bank desires to amend the Plan in certain respects. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
 1. Defined Terms. All terms used in this
Amendment which are defined in the Plan shall have the meanings specified in the Plan, unless specifically defined herein. 
 2. Amendment
of Section 4.1. Section 4.1 of the Plan shall be amended to provide that, subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of Section 4.3 of the Plan, the number of shares of Stock which may be issued and sold under the Plan
pursuant to Stock Option Agreements shall not exceed One Hundred Seven Thousand One Hundred Twenty-Four (107,124) shares. 
 3.
Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank has caused this Amendment to be duly executed by its officer thereunto duly authorized, all as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	FLORIDA CHOICE BANK
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kenneth E. LaRoe
		 	Kenneth E. LaRoe
		 	President and Chief Executive Officer
# ,**I~** Karen F. Long, Plaintiff,
v. Kathleen Kirland, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED DEC 1 3 20m Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia 

# 10 21U7

This matter is before the Court on its initial review ofplaintiffs pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant the informapauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the court'sjurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); seeAshcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Oralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice ofthe claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine ofresjudicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).Plaintiff, a resident ofOxon Hill, Maryland, sues an individual apparently associated with Marlo Furniture Store in District Heights, Maryland. The complaint, consisting ofscribbling and disjointed phrases, fails to provide any notice ofa claim or the basis offederal courtjurisdiction.) A separate Order ofdismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date:

# December~, 2010 United States District Judge

) This complaint is one ofnine such submissions received by the Clerk's Office on the same day. Each complaint names a different defendant but is otherwise the same. Moreover, similar complaints were dismissed in August, September and November ofthis year for the same reasons. Plaintiffis warned that her persistence in filing similar lawsuits may result in the imposition ofrestrictions on her ability to file cases in this Court. 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7089

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUIS CARLOS MUCHADO, a/k/a Francisco Javier Montesrein-Rodriguez, a/k/a 

Lois K, a/k/a Lex, a/k/a Luis Rodriguez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:12-cr-00039-AWA-RJK-9; 

4:16-cv-00161-AWA)

Submitted: February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Luis Carlos Muchado, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Patrick Hudson, Eric Matthew Hurt,

Assistant United States Attorneys, Adam Small, Newport News, Virginia, Jerome M. 

Maiatico, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Joseph Kevin Wheatley, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Luis Carlos Muchado seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as 

untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Muchado has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: The regulations contained in this part have been recodified in 46 CFR part 287.

§ 2.1-26 Reports by taxpayers. ( a ) *Information required.* With each income tax return filed for a taxable year during any part of which a construction reserve fund is in existence the taxpayer shall submit a statement setting forth a detailed analysis of such fund. The statement, which need not be on any prescribed form, shall include the following information with respect to the construction reserve fund: ( 1 ) The actual balance in the fund at the beginning and end of the taxable year;
( 2 ) The date, amount, and source of each deposit during the taxable year;
( 3 ) If any deposit referred to in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph consists of proceeds from the sale, or indemnification of loss, of a vessel or share thereof, the amounts of the unrecognized gain;
( 4 ) The date, amount, and purpose of each expenditure or withdrawal from the fund; and
( 5 ) The date and amount of each contract, under which deposited funds are deemed to be obligated during the taxable year, for the construction, reconstruction, reconditioning, or acquisition of new vessels, or for the liquidation of purchase-money indebtedness on such vessels, and the identification of such vessels.
( b ) *Records required.* Taxpayers shall keep such records and make such additional reports as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Administration may require.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bain Capital Specialty Finance, Inc. (the "Company") for the annual period
ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael A. Ewald, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I,
Sally F. Dornaus, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

Date:
February 28, 2019



/s/ Michael A. Ewald Michael A. Ewald
Chief Executive OfficerBain Capital Specialty Finance, Inc./s/ Sally F. Dornaus Sally F. Dornaus
Chief Financial OfficerBain Capital Specialty Finance, Inc.


---



QuickLinks
39664.

#### TURNER v. WEAVER.

Decided November 5, 1962.

*Chas. W. Anderson,*for plaintiff in error.

*William T. Brooks, James B. McGregor,*contra.

Frankum, Judge.

1. The petition, as amended, sets forth a cause of action. The renewed general demurrer to the petition, as amended, is without merit.

2. “It is not a good assignment of error on a portion of the judge’s charge which states a correct principle of law applicable to the case, that some other correct and appropriate instruction was not given.” *Jester v. State,*193 Ga. 202, 210 (17 SE2d 736). See *Napper v. State,*200 Ga. 626 (38 SE2d 269); *Currie v. State,*153 Ga. 178 (111 SE 727); *Georgia Power Co. v. Chapman,*46 Ga. App. 582 (3) (168 SE 131); *Maulding v. Atlanta Transit System,*101 Ga. App. 11 (112 SE2d 666). Special grounds 1, 2 and 5 of the motion for new trial, assigning error upon portions of the court’s charge to the jury, are defective under the rule pronounced in the above cited cases.

3. The question of comparative negligence was not raised by the pleadings in this case, and in the absence of a timely written request, it was not reversible error for the court to fail to charge upon the principles of law concerning comparative negligence, since the court did adequately instruct the jury on the question of negligence with respect to the plaintiff’s right to recover and the right of the defendant to have a verdict in his favor. *Savannah Electric Co. v. Crawford,*130 Ga. 421 (60 SE 1056) ; *City of Dalton v. Hill,*95 Ga. App. 797 (99 SE2d 169); *City of Commerce v. Bradford,*94 Ga. App. 284 (94 SE2d 160). Special grounds 3 and 4 of the defendant’s motion for new trial are without merit.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the general grounds of the defendant’s motion for new trial are without merit. Special ground 6 is not meritorious because it is nothing more than an amplification of the general grounds. The court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                       5

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                          326393
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59080
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                0
<PP&E>                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  385473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           0
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                      281697
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    385473
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2445217
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                350783
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2088688
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             2088688
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2088688
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0



</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8148 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow for the furnishing 

of audio-only telehealth services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2024 

Mr. FEENSTRA (for himself and Mr. NUNN of Iowa) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 

in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to allow 

for the furnishing of audio-only telehealth services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Audio-Only Telehealth 

5 Access Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ALLOWING FOR THE FURNISHING OF AUDIO-ONLY 

7 TELEHEALTH SERVICES. 

8 Section 1834(m)(9) of the Social Security Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 1395m(m)(9)) is amended in the first sentence to 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8148 IH

1 read as follows: ‘‘The Secretary shall provide coverage and 

2 payment under this part for telehealth services identified 

3 in paragraph (4)(F)(i) as of the date of the enactment 

4 of this paragraph that are furnished via an audio-only 

5 communications system on or after the first day of the 

6 emergency period described in section 1135(g)(1)(B).’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Covalent Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence R. Hoffman, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                           
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: August 24, 2005 |  | /s/ Lawrence R. Hoffman                   
|                      |  | Lawrence R. Hoffman                       
|                      |  | Executive Vice President, General Counsel,
|                      |  | Secretary and Chief Financial Officer     



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Referenceis hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as ofOctober 1, 2015, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Servicer and Special Servicer andU.S. Bank National Association, as Certificate Administrator and Trustee, withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-HAUL (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 10.8 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director ofSpecial Servicing do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of theSpecial Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31,2017 (the “Reporting Period”) , and of its performance per the Agreement duringsuch period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based onsuch review, the Special Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations underthe Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018.

 

 

/s/Daniel Marthinsen

DanielMarthinsen, Managing Director 

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
§ 1.897-7T Treatment of certain partnership interests as entirely U.S. real property interests under sections 897(g) and 1445(e) (temporary). ( a ) *Rule.* Pursuant to section 897(g), an interest in a partnership in which, directly or indirectly, fifty percent or more of the value of the gross assets consist of U.S. real property interests, and ninety percent or more of the value of the gross assets consist of U.S. real property interests plus any cash or cash equivalents shall, for purposes of section 1445, be treated as entirely a U.S. real property interest. For purposes of section 897(g), such interest shall be treated as a U.S. real property interest only to the extent that the gain on the disposition is attributable to U.S. real property interests (and not cash, cash equivalents or other property). Consequently, a disposition of any portion of such partnership interest shall be subject to partial taxation under section 897(a) and full withholding under section 1445(a). For purposes of this paragraph, cash equivalent means any asset readily convertible into cash (whether or not denominated in U.S. dollars) including, but not limited to, bank accounts, certificates of deposit, money market accounts, commercial paper, U.S. and foreign treasury obligations and bonds, corporate obligations and bonds, precious metals or commodities, and publicly traded instruments.
( b ) *Effective date.* Section 1.897-7T shall be effective for transfers, exchanges, distributions and other dispositions occurring after June 6, 1988.
( c ) *Coordination with section 864(c)(8).* [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.897-7(c).
[T.D. 8198, 53 FR 16228, May 5, 1988, as amended by T.D. 9919, 85 FR 70971, Nov. 6, 2020]
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Milestone Scientific Inc on Form
10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas Stuckey Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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.

/s/ Thomas M. Stuckey
    -----------------

Thomas M. Stuckey
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39104-39105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18742]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-09-022]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting:  United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date:  August 13, 2009 at 3:30 p.m.

Place:  Room 101, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status:  Open to the public.

Matters To Be Considered: 
    1. Agenda for future meetings: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. No. 731-TA-1163 (Preliminary) (Woven Electric Blankets from 
China)--briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to 
transmit its determination to the Secretary of Commerce on or before 
August 14, 2009; Commissioners' opinions are currently scheduled to be 
transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce on or before August 21, 2009.)
    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not

[[Page 39105]]

disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda 
of the following meeting. Earlier announcement of this meeting was not 
possible.

    Issued: July 31, 2009.

    By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Hearings and Meetings Coordinator.
[FR Doc. E9-18742 Filed 8-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P