alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Con. Res. 30 Agreed to February 16, 1995

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concur- ring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of

Thursday, February 16, 1995, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m.

on Tuesday, February 21, 1995, 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, February 16, 1995, pursuant to a motion made by the majority

leader or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it stand

recessed or adjourned until noon, or at such time on that day

as may be specified by the majority leader or his designee in

the motion to recess or adjourn, on Wednesday, February 22, 1995,

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.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
1

From: Susan Fairchild [Fairchild.Susan@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:13 AM

To: Reeves, David; Hancy, Cindy Wang

Subject: Fw: Isolatek International Additional Comments to SBAR Panel

Attachments: Isolatek International Additional Comments to SBAR Panel 1 July.pdf

Categories: Blue Category

add to the docket ----- Forwarded by Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/05/2011 11:12 AM ----- From: Tom Lund <tlund@isolatek.com> To: Madeline Barch/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: christofaro.alexander@epa.gov, Susan Fairchild/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, cortney_higgins@omb.gov, david.rostker@sba.gov Date: 07/01/2011 03:37 PM Subject: Isolatek International Additional Comments to SBAR Panel

Ms. Madeline Barch, 

Isolatek International has attached additional comments to augment those 

you have received from NAIMA on June 30, 2011. NAIMA is aware that we are 

submitting additional information directly to you. 

(See attached file: Isolatek International Additional Comments to SBAR 

Panel 1 July.pdf) 

With regard, 

Tom Lund 

Operations Manager 

260-356-2040 x328 

260-356-2337 fax 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: 

The documents accompanying this telecopy transmission contain information 

which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. The information is 

intended only for the use of the individual or entity named on this 

transmission sheet. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 

notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any 

action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is 

strictly prohibited, and that the documents should be returned to the 

Company immediately. In this regard, if you have received this telecopy in 

error, please notify us.
§ 15.737-21 Evidence. ( a ) *In general.* The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity are not controlling in hearings on complaints for the suspension of a former officer or employee from practice before the Department. However, the Administrative Law Judge shall exclude evidence which is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious.
( b ) *Depositions.* The deposition of any witness taken pursuant to § 15.737-22 of this part may be admitted.
( c ) *Proof of documents.* Official documents, records and papers of the Department shall be admissible in evidence without the production of an officer or employee to authenticate them. Any such documents, records, and papers may be evidenced by a copy attested or identified by an officer or employee of the Department.
( d ) *Exhibits.* If any document, record, or other paper is introduced in evidence as an exhibit, the Administrative Law Judge may authorize the withdrawal of the exhibit subject to any conditions which he/she deems proper.
( e ) *Objections.* Objections to evidence shall be in short form, stating the grounds of objection relied upon, and the record shall not include argument thereon, except as ordered by the Administrative Law Judge. Rulings on such objections shall be a part of the record. No exception to the ruling is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties.
www.gpo.gov

### §639. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §110(u), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2175

Section, acts Apr. 19, 1950, ch. 92, §9, 64 Stat. 47; Oct. 30, 1972, Pub. L. 92–603, title III, §303(c), 86 Stat. 1484; Dec. 31, 1973, Pub. L. 93–233, §19(a), 87 Stat. 974, related to additional Social Security contributions to States for State expenditures for aid to dependent children to Navajo and Hopi Indians.

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 1997, with transition rules relating to State options to accelerate such date, rules relating to claims, actions, and proceedings commenced before such date, rules relating to closing out of accounts for terminated or substantially modified programs and continuance in office of Assistant Secretary for Family Support, and provisions relating to termination of entitlement under AFDC program, see section 116 of Pub. L. 104–193, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note under section 601 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
www.gpo.gov

### §§421 to 427. Transferred

#### Codification

Section 421, act May 17, 1900, ch. 479, §1, 31 Stat. 179, which provided for free homesteads to settlers, commutation rights, and payments to Indians, was transferred to section 179 of Title 43, Public Lands.

Section 422, act Jan. 26, 1901, ch. 180, 31 Stat. 740, which related to right of settlers to commute entry, was transferred to section 180 of Title 43.

Section 423, act May 22, 1902, ch. 821, §2, 32 Stat. 203, which related to second homestead entry by certain settlers, was transferred to section 187b of Title 43.

Section 424, act Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 832, §1, 31 Stat. 1077, which related to negotiations for cession of lands, was transferred to section 1195 of Title 43.

Section 425, act June 6, 1912, ch. 155, 37 Stat. 125, which related to classification and appraisement of unallotted and unreserved lands, was transferred to section 1196 of Title 43.

Section 426, act Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, §10, 26 Stat. 1099, which provided that act Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 561, not affect agreements with any Indian tribe to dispose of land, was transferred to section 1197 of Title 43.

Section 427, act Feb. 9, 1903, ch. 531, 32 Stat. 820, which extended town-site laws to ceded lands in Minnesota, was transferred to section 731 of Title 43.
EXHIBIT 31.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Michael Schumacher, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Birch Branch, Inc.

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date.

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on

our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  February 16, 2006


 /s/ Michael Schumacher
----------------------------------------------
Michael Schumacher
President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7381** 

RONALD JENKINS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE , Respondent

- Appellee , and
ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON , Respondent
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 01245

- JFA )

Submitted : January 16, 2014 Decided: January 23, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ronald Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Ronald Jenkins 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 (20 12 ) 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) (20 12 ) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution al right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 )
. 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 deb atable 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 i s 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 Jenkins 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 legal4 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 31.3127-1 Exemption for employers and their employees if both are members of religious faiths opposed to participation in Social Security Act programs. ( a ) *Exemption* — ( 1 ) *Employer.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an employer is exempt from the taxes imposed by section 3111 on wages paid to an employee if— ( i ) The employer (or if the employer is a partnership, each partner therein) and its employee are members of a recognized religious sect or division described in section 1402(g)(1);
( ii ) Both the employer (or if the employer is a partnership, each partner therein) and the employee adhere to the tenets and teachings of that sect; and
( iii ) Both the employer and the employee have filed and had approved applications under section 3127(b) for exemption from the taxes imposed by sections 3111 and 3101.
( 2 ) *Employee.* If an employer is exempt from the taxes imposed by section 3111 under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, then each employee described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is exempt from the taxes imposed by section 3101 on the wages received with respect to employment with that employer.
( b ) *Corporation.* Services performed in the employ of a corporation are not within the exemption described in paragraph (a) of this section, except that services performed in the employ of an entity that is treated as a corporation under § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) of this chapter may qualify for the exemption if the requirements of the exemption are otherwise met. An entity that is treated as a corporation under § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) of this chapter is not treated as the employer for purposes of applying section 3127 and this section. For purposes of applying section 3127 and paragraph (a) of this section, the owner of an entity that is treated as a corporation under § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(iv)(B) of this chapter is treated as the employer.
( c ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to wages paid on or after November 1, 2011. However, taxpayers may apply this section to wages paid on or after January 1, 2009.
[T.D. 9670, 79 FR 36206, June 26, 2014]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1034 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1034

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the health 
         insurance tax deduction for self-employed individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1995

Mrs. Meyers of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the health 
         insurance tax deduction for self-employed individuals.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN HEALTH INSURANCE TAX DEDUCTION FOR SELF-EMPLOYED 
              INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) Increase in Amount of Deduction.--Paragraph (1) of section 
162(l) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules 
for health insurance costs of self-employed individuals) is amended by 
striking ``25 percent of'' and inserting ``100 percent (50 percent in 
the case of taxable years beginning in 1997 or 1998 and 75 percent in 
the case of taxable years beginning in 1999 or 2000) of''.
    (b) Treatment of Self-employed Contributions to Certain Group 
Health Plans.--Paragraph (2) of section 162(l) of such Code is amended 
by adding at the end thereof the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Treatment of group health plans.--For 
                purposes of this subsection, an amount paid into an 
                exempted multiple employer health plan (as defined in 
                section 701(9) of the Employee Retirement Income 
                Security Act of 1974, as added by the ERISA Targeted 
                Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995) shall be deemed to 
                be an amount paid for insurance which constitutes 
                medical care.''
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1996.
                                 <all>
```
www.gpo.gov

### §282b. Applicability of National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems

The provisions of section 286b of this title, shall apply with respect to the Corporation to the same extent as with respect to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

(Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 788, §4, 69 Stat. 669; Pub. L. 101–240, title V, §541(e)(1), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2518.)

#### Amendments

1989—Pub. L. 101–240 struck out at end “Reports with respect to the Corporation under paragraphs 5 and 6 of subsection (b) of section 286b of this title, shall be included in the first report made thereunder after the establishment of the Corporation and in each succeeding report.”

#### Delegation of Functions

Functions of National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems under this section delegated to National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies, see section 2(a) of Ex. Ord. No. 11269, Feb. 14, 1966, 31 F.R. 2813, set out as a note under section 286b of this title.
Order entered April 22 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 01439

- CR

GUILLERMO DE JES BER RIOS

- HERNANDEZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14

- 76828

- Y



### O RDER The reporter’s record is overdue in this appeal. Additionally, the clerk’s record does not contain the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a), (d); Cortez v . State , 420 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to prepare a certification of appellant’s right to appeal that accurately reflects the trial court proceedings.

We further ORDER the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determin es that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect. If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal.

 The trial court shall next deter mine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date
of this order. The supplemental record shall also contain the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received,
whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 11036 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JAMAAL ROZELL DUNSO N , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:17

- CR

- 61

- 1

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Jamaal Rozell Dunson has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Dunson h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and the rel evant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of A ppeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 26, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-11036 Document: 00515090733 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2019No. 18

- 11036

2 appellate review. See United States v. Pesina

- Rodriguez , 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, counsel’s mot ion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-11036 Document: 00515090733 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2019