alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6018-1 Estate tax returns.

For provisions relating to requirement of estate tax returns, see §§ 20.6018-1 to 20.6018-4, inclusive, of this chapter (Estate Tax Regulations).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 203 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 203

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

            Providing for an adjournment of the two Houses.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 203

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in consonance with section 132(a) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, when the House adjourns on the legislative 
day of Thursday, August 1, 1996, Friday, August 2, 1996, or Saturday, 
August 3, 1996, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand adjourned until noon on Wednesday, September 4, 
1996, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
at the close of business on Thursday, August 1, 1996, Friday, August 2, 
1996, Saturday, August 3, 1996, or Sunday, August 4, 1996, pursuant to 
a motion made by the Majority Leader or his designee in accordance with 
this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Tuesday, 
September 3, 1996, or until such time on that day as may be specified 
by the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or 
adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 26, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6676

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. DONTE LAMONT BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00053-WMN-1; 1:07-cv-02858-WMN)

Submitted: August 26, 2009 Decided: September 3, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donte Lamont Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donte Lamont Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El

v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6693-1 Penalty for failure to provide reports and documents concerning individual retirement accounts or annuities. ( a ) *In general* — ( 1 ) *Annual reports, etc.* The trustee of an individual retirement account described in section 408(a), or the issuer of an individual retirement annuity described in section 408(b), who fails to furnish or file a report or any other document required under section 408(i) and § 1.408-5 within the time and in the manner prescribed for furnishing or filing such item shall pay a penalty of $10 for each failure unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause.
( 2 ) *Disclosure statements.* The trustee of an individual retirement account described in section 408(a), or the issuer of an individual retirement annuity described in section 408(b), who fails to furnish or file a disclosure statement, a governing instrument, an amendment to either, or any other document required under section 408(i) and § 1.408-6, within the time and in the manner prescribed for furnishing or filing such item, shall pay a penalty of $10 for each failure unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause.
( b ) *Showing of reasonable cause.* The penalty imposed by section 6693 shall not apply to any person with respect to a failure to furnish or file a report, statement, or other document within the time and in the manner prescribed if it is established to the satisfaction of the district director that such failure was due to reasonable cause. An affirmative showing of reasonable cause must be made in the form of a written statement, containing a declaration by such person that it is made under the penalties of perjury and setting forth all the facts alleged to constitute reasonable cause.
( c ) *Deficiency procedures not to apply.* The penalty imposed by section 6693 may be assessed and collected without regard to the deficiency procedures provided by subchapter B of chapter 63 of the Code.
( d ) *Other penalties.* The penalties of section 6693 and this section are in lieu of any penalty imposed by section 6652(f) for violation of section 6047(d), with respect to any failure to furnish or file described in this section.
( e ) *Effective date.* This section shall take effect on January 1, 1975.
[T.D. 7730, 45 FR 72652, Nov. 3, 1980]
§ 156.6001-1 Notice or regulations requiring records, statements, and special returns. ( a ) *In general.* Any person subject to tax under chapter 54 (Greenmail) of the Code shall keep such complete and detailed records as are sufficient to enable the district director to determine accurately the amount of liability under chapter 54.
( b ) *Notice by district director requiring returns, statements, or the keeping of records.* The district director may require any person, by notice served upon him, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such specific records as will enable the district director to determine whether or not the person is liable for tax under chapter 54 of the Code.
( c ) *Retention of records.* The records required by this section shall be kept at all times available for inspection by authorized internal revenue officers or employees, and shall be retained so long as the contents thereof may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law.
[T.D. 8379, 56 FR 65685, Dec. 18, 1991; 57 FR 5931, Feb. 18, 1992]
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certificationof Quarterly Report**

 

I,Robert W. Benson, Chief Financial Officer of ProCyte Corporation, (the “Company”),hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)           the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (12 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 
| Dated:  November  12, 2004 | /s/  Robert W. Benson   |
|--------------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                                 | Robert W. Benson        |
|                                 | Chief Financial Officer |
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 21780 Employed full time (persons who usually work Number in thousands 55 years and over 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value** LNU02524230Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Employed, Usually W ork Full Time, 55

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:09:41 PM)
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1996 FORM 10-Q BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF 
OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>      0000856135                   
<NAME>     AMERICAN TAX CREDIT PROPERTIES III L.P.                  
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1000
<CURRENCY>                                         0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                             590
<SECURITIES>                                     2,848
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,571
<SALES>                                            157
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   157
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   256
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,308)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,308)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,308)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (36.10) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
November 9, 2010

RE: Docket No. FAA-2010-0832

The Air Transport Association of America, Inc., the National Air Carrier Association and the 

Regional Airline Association hereby withdraw their request for a limited exemption from 14 

C.F.R. § 121.803(c)(3), submitted on August 10, 2010. The shortage of epinephrine 1:10,000, 

2 cc, injectable, (single dose ampule or equivalent) and dextrose, 50%/50 cc injectable, (single 

dose ampule or equivalent), which gave rise to the petition, have been resolved and therefore the 

exemption is no longer needed. We appreciate your attention to this matter.

Katherine B. Andrus

Air Transport Association of America, Inc.
##### Table of Contents

**Exhibit 99.1**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Covalent Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kenneth M. Borow, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-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. |

 

| /s/ KENNETH M. BOROW, M.D.                                       |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                  |   |
| **Kenneth M. Borow, M.D. President and Chief Executive Officer** |   |
|                                                             |   |
| May 14, 2003                                                     |   |

NOTE: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toCovalent Group, Inc. and will be retained by Covalent Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

27
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 177 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 177

  Expressing the sense of the Congress that family members and others 
       should support all individuals affected by breast cancer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 1996

  Mr. Zeliff submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress that family members and others 
       should support all individuals affected by breast cancer.

Whereas an individual's fight against breast cancer is a family matter;
Whereas breast cancer is a disease of epidemic proportions, with 46,000 
        individuals in the United States expected to die from breast cancer in 
        1996, and 1 out of every 8 women in the United States expected to 
        develop breast cancer in her lifetime;
Whereas every year millions of family members and other loved ones of 
        individuals with breast cancer will be left to cope with the devastating 
        loss caused by breast cancer;
Whereas the family members, including spouses, children, parents, brothers, and 
        sisters, and other loved ones of individuals with breast cancer can 
        offer strong emotional support to each other in addition to the support 
        that they can offer to the individuals with breast cancer;
Whereas it is important that the family members and other loved ones of 
        individuals with breast cancer, in addition to the individuals with 
        breast cancer, be supported to the greatest extent possible; and
Whereas it is important that the people of the Nation support the family members 
        and other loved ones of individuals with breast cancer in addition to 
        supporting the individuals with breast cancer: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) the people of the Nation should support individuals 
        with breast cancer and the family members and other loved ones 
        of individuals with breast cancer; and
            (2) the family members and other loved ones of individuals 
        with breast cancer should support each other in addition to the 
        individuals with breast cancer.
                                 <all>
```
#### Remigio I. AGUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John H. DALTON, Secretary, U.S. Dept. of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-16364.

D.C. No. CV-96-04527-DLJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 17, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Remigio I. Agustín appeals pro se the district court’s orders denying his motions to reconsider summary judgment for the Navy in Agustin’s employment discrimination action, and we affirm.

We have jurisdiction over the district court’s orders dated May 23, 2001, June 8, 2001, and July 11, 2001, denying reconsideration, because Agustín filed a notice of appeal within 60 days of those orders. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We lack jurisdiction to address Agustin’s appeal of the district court’s summary judgment because Agustin failed to file a notice of appeal within 60 days of entry of the order denying his timely, post-judgment tolling motion. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) (2002); *Webb v. Ada County,*285 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir.2002).

We review the district court’s denial of Agustin’s motions to reconsider for an abuse of discretion. *ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d at 1262. The district court correctly denied Agustin’s motions because it did not apply incorrect law or utilize erroneous facts. *See id.*

Agustin’s motions to present additional citations, to withdraw additional citations, *896and to supplement the record are granted. Agustin’s motion to stay further action is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6548

FRANK FURTICK, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(8:13-cv-00079-MGL)

Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Furtick, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Frank Furtick, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 Miller-El 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 petition 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 Furtick 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 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 28, 2015

p0720

Order 

Clerk

July 28, 2015

150363

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 150363

COA: 322023

Emmet CC: 11-003521-FH

REGGIE BERNARD BURKS, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).