alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
www.gpo.gov

### §§5115, 5116. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–149, §4(a)(1), Nov. 23, 1993, 107 Stat. 1504

Section 5115, Pub. L. 99–440, title VI, §605, Oct. 2, 1986, 100 Stat. 1115, related to construction of this chapter.

Section 5116, Pub. L. 99–440, title VI, §606, Oct. 2, 1986, 100 Stat. 1115, related to penalties for application of State and local anti-apartheid laws to certain State and local government contracts.
§ 44.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers. ( a ) *In general.* A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund of tax on wagers under sections 4401 or 4411, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the record keeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in § 1.6060-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78456, Dec. 22, 2008]
IA

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 142

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 1996

Mr. OBEY introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Appropriations

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1996, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 106(c) of Public Law 104–56 is amended by

4 striking ‘‘December 15, 1995’’ and inserting ‘‘February

5 19, 1996’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 12.1

         STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in Thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                 Nine Months
                                    Ended           Year Ended       Year Ended       Year Ended       Year Ended      Year Ended
                              December 31, 1998   March 31, 1998   March 31, 1997   March 31, 1996   March 31, 1995  March 31, 1994
                              ------------------  ---------------  ---------------  --------------   --------------  --------------

<S>                                 <C>                <C>             <C>              <C>              <C>               <C>  
Consolidated pretax income
   (loss) from continuing 
   operations                        2,628             (27,122)        (26,005)         (21,431)          (1,869)         (20,296)

Net amortization of debt
   issuance expense                  1,076             2,292            1,784            2,139            2,174            1,837

Interest expense                    26,436             36,664          34,505           30,549           23,578           22,212

Interest portion of 
   rental expense                    1,598              2,130           1,799            1,618            1,392            1,229
                                 ---------          ---------        --------         --------          -------          -------

Earnings                            31,738             13,964          12,083           12,875           25,275            4,982
                                 =========          =========        ========         ========          =======          =======


Interest expense                    26,436             36,664          34,505           30,549           23,578           22,212

Net amortization of 
    debt issuance Expense            1,076              2,292           1,784            2,139            2,174            1,837

Interest portion of 
    rental expense                   1,598              2,130           1,799            1,618            1,392            1,229
                                 ---------          ---------        --------         --------          -------          -------

    Fixed Charges                   29,110             41,086          38,088           34,306           27,144           25,278
                                 =========          =========        ========         ========          =======          =======


    Ratio of Earnings to
       Fixed Charges                  1.09               (a)            (a)              (a)               (a)              (a)
                                 =========          =========        ========         ========          =======          =======
</TABLE>


 (a) The deficiency in earnings required to cover fixed charges for the
   fiscal years ended March 31, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995 and 1994 was $27,122,
   $26,005, $21,431, $1,869 and $20,296, respectively.
§ 48.6416(b)(1)-3 Readjustment for local advertising charges. ( a ) *In general.* If a manufacturer has paid the tax imposed by chapter 32 on the price of any article sold by the manufacturer and thereafter has repaid a portion of the price to the purchaser or any subsequent vendee in reimbursement of expenses for local advertising of the article or any other article sold by the manufacturer which is taxable at the same rate under the same section of chapter 32, the reimbursement will be considered a price readjustment constituting an overpayment which the manufacturer may claim as a credit or refund. The amount of the reimbursement may not, however, exceed the limitation provided by section 4216(e)(2) and § 48.4216(e)-2, determined as of the close of the calendar quarter in which the reimbursement is made or as of the close of any subsequent calendar quarter of the same calendar year in which it is made. The term “local advertising”, as used in this section, has the same meaning as prescribed by section 4216(e)(4) and includes generally, advertising which is broadcast over a radio station or television station, or appears in a newspaper or magazine, or is displayed by means of an outdoor advertising sign or poster.
( b ) *Local advertising charges excluded from taxable price in one year but repaid in following year* — ( 1 ) *Determination of price readjustments for year in which charge is repaid.* If the tax imposed by chapter 32 was paid with respect to local advertising charges that were excluded in computing the taxable price of an article sold in any calendar year but are not repaid to the manufacturer's purchaser or any subsequent vendee before May 1 of the following calendar year, the subsequent repayment of those charges by the manufacturer in reimbursement of expenses for local advertising will be considered a price readjustment constituting an overpayment which the manufacturer may claim as a credit or refund. The amount of the reimbursement may not, however, exceed the limitation provided by section 4216(e)(2) and § 48.4216(e)-(2), determined as of the close of the calendar quarter in which the reimbursement is made or as of the close of any subsequent calendar quarter of the same calendar year in which it is made.
( 2 ) *Redetermination of price readjustments for year in which charge was made.* If the tax imposed by chapter 32 was paid with respect to local advertising charges that were excluded in computing the taxable price of an article sold in any calendar year but are not repaid to the manufacturer's purchaser or any subsequent vendor before May 1 of the following calendar year, the manufacturer may make a redetermination, in respect of the calendar year in which the charge was made, of the price readjustments constituting an overpayment which the manufacturer may claim as a credit or refund. This redetermination may be made by excluding the local advertising charges made in the calendar year that became taxable as of May 1 of the following calendar year.
[T.D. 8043, 50 FR 32026, Aug. 8, 1985]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 54 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 54

    Commending President Bush on conclusion of the START II Treaty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             February 2 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

    Mr. McCain (for himself, Mr. Dole, and Mr. Lugar) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Commending President Bush on conclusion of the START II Treaty.

Whereas on January 3, 1993, President George Bush and President Boris Yeltsin 
        signed the Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic 
        Offensive Arms (START II);
Whereas, as a result of the implementation of the START I and START II treaties, 
        the immediate threat of nuclear war will be reduced by creating a more 
        stable mix of nuclear weapons between the world's two foremost nuclear 
        powers;
Whereas the START treaties will eliminate heavy ICBMs and multiple-warhead 
        ICBMs, weapons which have long been the most destabilizing weapons 
        associated with the East-West arms race;
Whereas the threat of a first strike in the event of renewed hostilities with 
        the former Soviet Union would be greatly reduced;
Whereas nuclear weapons remain a central element of United States force 
        structure and an essential element of its national security;
Whereas the START II Treaty allows the United States to maintain its nuclear 
        triad with a more stable mix of weapons while maintaining United States 
        security in the event of political instability in Russia; and
Whereas the START II Treaty continues the stringent verification regime of the 
        first START agreement, thereby reducing the risk of conscious Russian 
        noncompliance: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) commends George Bush on the successful conclusion of 
        the START II Treaty;
            (2) having received the START II Treaty from the President, 
        intends to take up the Treaty at the earliest possible moment 
        in pursuit of its Constitutional duty to advise and consent to 
        the ratification of treaties;
            (3) calls on President Clinton to encourage ratification of 
        START II by the Russian Parliament;
            (4) calls on President Clinton to encourage the 
        ratification of START I by the parliaments of Belarus and 
        Ukraine; and
            (5) calls on President Clinton to support appropriate forms 
        and levels of assistance to the republics of the former Soviet 
        Union as a means to secure the timely implementation of the 
        START I and START II treaties.

                                 <all>
```
Order entered June 1, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 15

- 01015

- CR

CALVIN ULESS KENNEDY , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. F 14

- 76824

- R



### O RDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the January 19, 2016 m otion of

Ronald L. Goranson for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to remove Ronald L. Goranson as c ounsel of record for appellant. We

DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to
Calvin Uless Kennedy, TDCJ No. 02021345, Middleton Unit, 13055 FM 3522, Abilene, Texas,

79601.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
EXHIBIT
      32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350











We, each hereby certify to the best of
our knowledge that the Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q of Gateway Tax Credit Fund
II, Ltd. for the period ended December 31, 2008 containing the financial
statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)) and that information
contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Gateway.








/s/ Ronald M.
      Diner
              Ronald
      M. Diner
              President
              Raymond
      James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.
              (the
      Managing General Partner)
              February
      19, 2009/s/ Jonathan
      Oorlog
              Jonathan
      Oorlog
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
              Raymond
      James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.
              (the
      Managing General Partner)
              February
      19, 2009
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsParametric Structural Model for a Mars Entry ConceptThis paper outlines the process of developing a parametric model for a vehicle that can withstand Earth launch and Mars entry conditions. This model allows the user to change a variety of parameters ranging from dimensions and meshing to materials and atmospheric entry angles to perform finite element analysis on the model for the specified load cases. While this work focuses on an aeroshell for Earth launch aboard the Space Launch System (SLS) and Mars entry, the model can be applied to different vehicles and destinations. This specific project derived from the need to deliver large payloads to Mars efficiently, safely, and cheaply. Doing so requires minimizing the structural mass of the body as much as possible. The code developed for this project allows for dozens of cases to be run with the single click of a button. The end result of the parametric model gives the user a sense of how the body reacts under different loading cases so that it can be optimized for its purpose. The data are reported in this paper and can provide engineers with a good understanding of the model and valuable information for improving the design of the vehicle. In addition, conclusions show that the frequency analysis drives the design and suggestions are made to reduce the significance of normal modes in the design.Document ID20170005866Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsLane, Brittney M.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Ahmed, Samee W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredJune 28, 2017Publication DateFebruary 1, 2017Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2017-219375NF1676L-25488L-20754Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 388496.04.01.02Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20170005866.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
IV

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 209

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the territorial integrity, unity,

sovereignty, and full independence of Lebanon.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 2, 1996

Mr. RAHALL (for himself, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. LAHOOD, and Mr. HOKE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the territorial

integrity, unity, sovereignty, and full independence of

Lebanon.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That—

3 (1) the Congress—

4 (A) reaffirms the commitment of the Unit5 ed States to preserve the territorial integrity,

6 unity, sovereignty, and full independence of

7 Lebanon;

8 (B) urges the President to take the nec9 essary steps to activate the Consultative Group
2

•HCON 209 IH

1 for Lebanon’s Reconstruction, which was estab2 lished by the April 26, 1996, Understanding be3 tween Lebanon and Israel; and

4 (C) calls for the withdrawal of all non-Leb5 anese forces from Lebanon so that Lebanon will

6 no longer serve as the preferred battleground

7 for its neighbors;

8 (2) it is the sense of the Congress that—

9 (A) the President should consider resolving

10 the presence of non-Lebanese forces in Lebanon

11 without relying exclusively upon a comprehen12 sive peace in the region to resolve this issue;

13 and

14 (B) insofar as Lebanon’s neighbors require

15 security from Lebanon, Lebanon must be se16 cure from interference from its neighbors;

17 (3) the Congress—

18 (A) calls upon the President to negotiate

19 directly with officials of the Government of Leb20 anon on issues pertaining to Lebanon; and

21 (B) calls upon Lebanon to assert more

22 independence to assure the international com23 munity that Lebanon has the political will and

24 military capability to guarantee security along

25 its borders for itself and its neighbors and dis-
3

•HCON 209 IH

1 arm all militias upon the withdrawal of non2 Lebanese forces from Lebanon;

3 (4) insofar as the democratic process is part of

4 Lebanon’s national character, the Congress urges

5 that Lebanon’s parliamentary elections proceed

6 unimpeded in a fair, open, and equitable manner;

7 and

8 (5) it is the sense of the Congress that the

9 President should use the guidelines set forth in

10 paragraphs (1) through (4) in formulating United

11 States policy toward Lebanon.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
          the quarter ended June 29, 1999 Form 10Q 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>          1,000
<CURRENCY>            US Dollars

<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        MAR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>           MAR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>             JUN-29-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1.00
<CASH>                           760
<SECURITIES>                   2,631
<RECEIVABLES>                     30
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   0
<PP&E>                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 9,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          2,256
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   9,034
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  61
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 128
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (474)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (474)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                    (474)
<EPS-BASIC>                 (13.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0


</TABLE>
39600.

#### PETROLEUM CARRIER CORPORATION v. POLK.

Decided September 7, 1962

Rehearing denied September 26, 1962.

*651
      *Franklin, Barham & Coleman, W. D. Knight, E. B. Smith, Sr., O. W. Franklin, Jr., Ed. G. Barham, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Elsie H. Griner, Edward Parrish,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a judgment n.o.v. The motion was not in due form and prayed for a judgment in accordance with the motion for new trial.

2. The court erred in overruling the motion for new trial *652because the evidence did not furnish the data necessary to a reasonable and definite conclusion as to the amount of the plaintiff’s damages. As to the amount alleged to be owed by the defendant for deficiencies in mileage calculation there was no evidence whatsoever that there were 4,152 miles not paid for @ $.17 per mile. A number of ledger sheets were introduced in evidence but they were not identified or explained so that the jury could arrive at the conclusion contended for by the plaintiff. The exhibits are utterly meaningless as to this item of damages so far as the total of miles not paid for is concerned. There is also a deficiency in the evidence as to how many trips would probably have been made by the plaintiff himself and how many by his three drivers for the period in question. Testimony that defendant in error averaged 16 to 17 trips per week over a one-year period (approximately) is not sufficient to show the number of trips made during the 26-day period involved in this case. Another deficiency in the evidence is as to proof of the damage suffered by plaintiff in the loss on the second truck rented to defendant. The evidence showed only that he paid $8,000 for the truck, paid an indefinite amount on the purchase price and turned it in for the balance due. There is no evidence as to the reasonable value of the truck when it was turned back to the seller. (The court does not mean to intimate that a loss on the truck would be a proper measure of damages, but there was no demurrer on this subject and no objections to evidence on the subject.) Most of the other items of damages proved were on the border line as to definiteness but were perhaps as close as could be given in such matters, for instance, cost of repairs, gasoline, taxes, etc.

The court erred in overruling the motion for new trial on the general grounds.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
§ 44.4404-1 Territorial extent. ( a ) *In general.* The tax imposed by section 4401 applies to wagers ( 1 ) accepted in the United States, or
( 2 ) placed by a person who is in the United States ( i ) with a person who is a citizen or resident of the United States, or
( ii ) in a wagering pool or lottery conducted by a person who is a citizen or resident of the United States. All wagers made within the United States are taxable irrespective of the citizenship or place of residence of the parties to the wager. Thus, the tax applies to wagers placed within the United States, even though the person for whom or on whose behalf the wagers are received is located in a foreign country and is not a citizen or resident of the United States. Likewise, a wager accepted outside the United States by a citizen or resident of the United States is taxable if the person making such wager is within the United States at the time the wager is made.
( b ) *Examples.* The following examples illustrate the application of paragraph (a) of this section:
Example 1. A syndicate which maintains its headquarters in a foreign country has representatives in the United States who receive wagers in the United States for or on behalf of such syndicate. For the purposes of section 4404, such wagers are considered as accepted within the United States, the syndicate is considered to be in the business of accepting wagers within the United States, and such wagers are subject to the tax. This is true regardless of the nationality or residence of the members of the syndicate.
Example 2. A Canadian citizen employed in Detroit, Michigan, telephones a horse race bet to a bookmaker who is a United States citizen with his place of business located in Windsor, Canada. The wager is taxable since it is made by a person within the United States with a person who is a United States citizen.
Example 3. A United States citizen while visiting Tijuana, Mexico, makes a wager on the outcome of a horse race with a bookmaker who is also a United States citizen located and doing business in Tijuana. The wager is not taxable since both parties to the wager, though United States citizens, were outside the United States at the time the wager was made.