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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2785

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for an enhanced 

deduction for qualified residence interest on acquisition indebtedness 

for heritage homes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2003

Mr. PLATTS (for himself, Mr. SOUDER, and Mr. WOLF) 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 provide 

for an enhanced deduction for qualified residence interest 

on acquisition indebtedness for heritage homes.

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 ‘‘Heritage Homes Tax 

5 Incentive Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 2785 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ENHANCED DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED RESI2 DENCE INTEREST ON ACQUISITION INDEBT3 EDNESS FOR HERITAGE HOMES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (h) of section 163 of 

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to disallow6 ance of deduction for personal interest) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(6) HERITAGE HOME.—

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of quali10 fied residence interest which is paid or accrued 

11 on acquisition indebtedness incurred with re12 spect to the heritage home of the taxpayer, the 

13 deduction under subsection (a) shall be 125 

14 percent of the amount otherwise allowable by 

15 subsection (a). 

16 ‘‘(B) HERITAGE HOME.—For purposes of 

17 subparagraph (A), the term ‘heritage home’ 

18 means the principal residence of the taxpayer—

19 ‘‘(i) the construction of which was 

20 substantially completed at least 50 years 

21 before the beginning of the taxable year, 

22 ‘‘(ii) which is a certified historical 

23 structure (as defined in section 

24 47(c)(3)(A)), 
3

•HR 2785 IH 

1 ‘‘(iii) which is located in a registered 

2 historical district (as defined in section 

3 47(c)(3)(B)), or 

4 ‘‘(iv) which is located on land which 

5 was platted for residential purposes at 

6 least 50 years prior to the beginning of the 

7 taxable year.’’. 

8 (b) DEDUCTION ALLOWED WHETHER OR NOT TAX9 PAYER ITEMIZES DEDUCTIONS.—Subsection (a) of section 

10 62 of such Code (defining adjusted gross income) is 

11 amended by inserting after paragraph (18) the following 

12 new paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(19) QUALIFIED RESIDENCE INTEREST ON AC14 QUISITION INDEBTEDNESS FOR HERITAGE HOMES.—

15 The deduction under section 163 for qualified resi16 dence interest on acquisition indebtedness with re17 spect to the heritage home of the taxpayer. Terms 

18 used in the preceding sentence have the meanings 

19 given such terms by section 163.’’

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

22 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7297
MONROE ROOSEVELT PARKER, JR., Rev., Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-968) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 11, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monroe Roosevelt Parker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1988) petition. We have reviewedthe record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Parker v. Angelone , No. CA-94-968 (E.D. Va. Aug. 2, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

‘%X46 
~cw8ti0nt hn the chid88i0a rduse t0 

l CODt iOr filing .u.h ~p~loati0.8 for permit. until 8uoh rite. or temlnl hers been doilnltely loo.t.4 or e.tablluh.4?” 

In the oa8e of Southwe8tem Onyhouid Lln.8 Ino., 

v. Rdlro.4 Oad..loa 8t il. 147 S. W. (Bd) 51.8, b*oh84 

on rmombor 5l,~lf+, motion iar rd.- aupI.4 on Julu.,ry 

89, 1941, th. Au8tIa Oourt o? OlrIl +..l. h.l4 that the 

Motor Bur, Ad, boIag Art1010 filla, Voxnonle Annoktod 01~11 

statute., limit. thi? juri.dIotlon Of tJa R.Ilmia aOSmi..l.Il 

In &xmntb@ 0rigIn.l u8rtIfloato8 to hlghq. aobudly ooa- 

.tru.teU and open to pub110 tr.ftIo at the tin. tb oortlfloak8 ama granted. Both tha R.llm.4 txmmi8810n an4 tin 

Ei.bln.-Xooh.8 Std.., ho., rim4 ar?pli08ti0- ior tfda 0r 

OxrOr in .a:& 0.~80 and .uoh 8&'lioatioM az'. .till p..diDg 

botor. the &ip~wno Oourt of T.x.8, 110 aotlon thtu far h.+w 

bwn t&on on -oh .~ptI..tlen. by the Sqm.t. Court. If .n 

l DplibatiOtl iOr a p@nait Of a.Ft:tiO.tb 1. ather.1.o 8u?ffolent w. do not kllovo the RIllraa4 Cemls.Ion rh.ul4 r.- 

r um to l o eepth. t 8.m. for fllw 00, the gmun4 that .uthoritJ i..ought to Opwatu QVRT highway. wh1.h have b... proj.ot.6 but whloh ham not br.n oonetruota4 an4 are n.t opa 

to pub118 tr.?flc. We ttibk It a4rfrablu fox .uah qpllo.- 

tloru to k maopted and file4 m&Q v&lam too loag a tlmo 

pm.08 beion the (hru~heun4 o... Is dial404 br the Supreme 

Court tha mm. .bul4 b. permitted to rrrt on the 4o.kot 

un4lspo804 of until the fhiprew Court t&m aoblon ln that 

06.0. &motor, ii ruoh an appXla.tlon aha8 011 it8 taor 

that the rout0 o9.r whlah it fo uoought to opoxato 1. not 

o fen l de8l~nrto4 publla ~6.4 or hi&&nay It 18 our opinion 

that th. Ocmml88loawoul4 bo aotfag wlthln It. authority 

In rMu8ine to Noaopt rush applioation for tiling. 

Wo will abw oommra our8.1~0. with tho roaold 

part OS your opinion wqu.st. If the epplloatlon 8how on 

lta raoi th.t the loostlon of tb treinlng oaarp ha. not b.ur 

fixed, ouah that It I. lmpoarlbl. for the Ccadselon to a.- 

oertaln fxom th. applloatl~n just what road or hi&way th. 

opsr&Ion would be over It Is our opinion that the Dwml8- 

elan mul4 be aotlag within it8 authority In rejeoting tho 

applioetloa. We are not willing to go i'urther than tho above 

l rgre88io~ in attaaptlng ta anewer 8. general a quo8tIon. 

Eaah in4Irl4ull applioation will ham to be m-4 bp It@ 
Railma Oonmlurion of Tara*, P-0 J 

own oontentsand It Is lmporrslble to4 40~ a gen8r.l rule 

by;F4oh the l uoh indirid\ral opplioatloae cod4 be properly 

.
#### § 1805.805 Compliance with government requirements.

In carrying out its responsibilities pursuant to an Assistance Agreement, the Recipient shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances, OMB Circulars, and Executive Orders. Furthermore, Recipients must comply with the CDFI Fund's Environmental Quality Regulations (12 CFR part 1815) as well as all other federal environmental requirements applicable to federal awards.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Argentine Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero Before Their Meeting

# 									Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Argentine Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero Before Their Meeting							

Remarks

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

Ritz-Carlton Nusa Dua

Bali, Indonesia

July 8, 2022

**SECRETARY BLINKEN:**Good evening, everyone.  Santiago, wonderful to see you again.  We were just in Los Angeles.  It seems like a few weeks ago, which it was.

**FOREIGN MINISTER CAFIERO:**  Few weeks ago, yes.

**SECRETARY BLINKEN:**  But it’s very good to be here with our colleagues from Argentina.  Argentina is a very important partner for the United States, and I think today our two countries, as well as colleagues from the G20, really demonstrated the importance of our work together on some of the most important issues of our time that are, actually, affecting the lives of our people.  Whether it’s food security, whether it’s energy prices, whether it’s global health, whether it’s the transition to deal with climate change and toward renewable energy, in all of these areas I think we recognize – Argentina and the United States – that we’re going to be even more effective when we’re working together and when we’re working with other countries.  None of these challenges that our people are facing have – can really be answered effectively by any one of us acting alone; and both Argentina and the United States are really committed to an energized multilateralism, and that’s one of the things that we focused on today.

So, I know we want to continue that conversation and,  also, talk about some of the work that we’re doing directly together bilaterally, strengthening the relationship between our countries, and also the work we’re doing in our own hemisphere, in the Americas, following up on the Summit of the Americas.  So, Santiago, thanks for taking the time.  It is great to be with you today.

**FOREIGN MINISTER CAFIERO:**  Thank you very much.  Thank you for the meeting.  It’s nice to see you again, and we’ll have a great opportunity in this summit to increase our bilateral cooperation, so we hope we’ll have a good meeting (inaudible).  So, thank you very much.

**SECRETARY BLINKEN:**  And, of course, I should mention that we very much look forward to having the president visit Washington in just a few weeks’ time.

**FOREIGN MINISTER CAFIERO:**  A few weeks.

**SECRETARY BLINKEN:**  So, we’ll spend some time talking about that too.  Thanks, everyone.

**FOREIGN MINISTER CAFIERO:**  Thank you.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsIndonesiaOffice of the SpokespersonSecretary TripThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### § 1807.905 Criminal provisions.

The criminal provisions of 18 U.S.C. 657 regarding embezzlement or misappropriation of funds are applicable to all Recipients and insiders.
§ 1807.302 Restrictions on use of a CMF Award. ( a ) The Recipient may not use its CMF Award for the following: ( 1 ) Political activities;
( 2 ) Advocacy;
( 3 ) Lobbying, whether directly or through other parties;
( 4 ) Counseling services (including Homebuyer or financial counseling);
( 5 ) Travel expenses;
( 6 ) Preparing or providing advice on tax returns;
( 7 ) Emergency shelters (including shelters for disaster victims);
( 8 ) Nursing homes;
( 9 ) Convalescent homes;
( 10 ) Residential treatment facilities;
( 11 ) Correctional facilities; or
( 12 ) Dormitories.
( b ) The Recipient shall not use the CMF Award to finance or support Projects that include: ( 1 ) The operation of any private or commercial golf course, country club, massage parlor, hot tub facility, suntan facility, racetrack or other facility used for gambling, or any store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises, or any of the businesses of activities set forth in 13 CFR 120.110(c) through (p), or any other businesses deemed inconsistent with the general purpose the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4701 *et seq.*); or
( 2 ) Farming activities (within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 2032A(e)(5)(A) or (B)), if, as of the close of the taxable year of the taxpayer conducting such trade or business, the sum of the aggregate unadjusted bases (or, if greater, the fair market value) of the assets owned by the taxpayer that are used in such a trade or business, and the aggregate value of the assets leased by the taxpayer that are used in such trade or business, exceeds $500,000.
( c ) For each individual CMF Award, the Recipient may not use more than 30 percent of its CMF Award for Economic Development Activities, if such use is approved in its applicable Assistance Agreement.
( d ) Any Recipient that uses its CMF Award for a Loan Guarantee or Loan Loss Reserves must ensure that loan(s) made pursuant to a Loan Guarantee or Loan Loss Reserves finance Affordable Housing Activities and/or Economic Development Activities. The Affordable Housing resulting from the Recipient's Loan Guarantee or Loan Loss Reserve shall be tracked during the Affordability Period for compliance with the affordability requirements as set forth in subpart D of this part.
( e ) If loans that are made pursuant to a Loan Guarantee or Loan Loss Reserves are repaid during the Investment Period, the Recipient must use the funds made available by the loan repayment as Program Income as set forth in the Recipient's Assistance Agreement.
( f ) The Recipient may use its CMF Award for Direct Administrative Expenses or Feasibility Determination Expenses at amounts set forth in the applicable NOFA and corresponding Assistance Agreement. Neither Direct Administrative Expenses nor Feasibility Determination Expenses can be attributable to Eligible Project Costs for a Project.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 189 (Thursday, October 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 50788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23734]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

[Docket No. USA-2009-0019]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by November 
2, 2009.
    Title, Form and OMB Number: Lock Performance Monitoring System 
(LMPS); Waterway Traffic Report, ENG FORMS 3102C and 3102D; OMB Control 
Number 0710-0008.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 5,132.
    Responses per Respondent: 98.31.
    Annual Responses: 504,527.
    Average Burden per Response: 2.5 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 21,022.
    Needs and Uses: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers utilizes the data 
collected to monitor and analyze the use and operation of Federally 
owned and operated locks; owners, agents and masters of vessels and 
estimated tonnage and commodities carried. The information is used for 
sizing and scheduling replacement or maintenance of locks and canals.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Jim Laity.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Laity at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: September 21, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-23734 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JUDGE JAMES M. LILLIS OF THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, 

BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ALLEN LEE CABRERA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 199 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2019, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED. The 

Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2730 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2730

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for 
 an independent review of citations issued by the Occupational Safety 
                       and Health Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2003

 Mr. Norwood introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for 
 an independent review of citations issued by the Occupational Safety 
                       and Health Administration.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Occupational Safety and Health 
Independent Review of OSHA Citations Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

    Section 11(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 
U.S.C. 660) is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: 
``The conclusions of the Commission with respect to all questions of 
law shall be given deference if reasonable.''.
                                 <all>
```
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

August 18, 2015 

v No. 319267 

Wayne Circuit Court 

WILLIAM ONEAL WATTERS, LC No. 13-000735-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and SHAPIRO, JJ. 

SHAPIRO, J (concurring). 

 I write separately because the trial court erred by broadly limiting the testimony of 

defendant’s expert in forensic interviewing protocol. However, because the court’s error was 

harmless, reversal is not warranted. Accordingly, I concur with the majority’s affirmance of 

defendant’s convictions and sentences. 

 The trial court erred by not permitting the defense expert to opine as to specific failures 

of the interviewer to comply with state-mandated protocol. It is undisputed that the use of these 

protocols is mandated in the Child Protection Law, MCL 722.628(6), and that the purpose of the 

protocols “is to obtain a statement from a child, in a developmentally-sensitive, unbiased, and 

truth-seeking manner, that will support accurate and fair decision-making in the criminal justice 

and child welfare systems.” Forensic Interviewing Protocol (3d ed), State of Michigan 

Governor’s Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect and Department of Human Services. A 

defendant may therefore present testimony by a trained forensic examiner describing the 

protocols, an interviewer’s deviation from them, and the significance of the noted deviations. 

Such testimony goes to the reliability of the investigative process and not the credibility of the 

child complainant. For this reason, the trial court’s limitation of the expert’s testimony to the 

mere existence of the protocols was overly broad and an abuse of discretion. 

 Nevertheless, “[e]videntiary error will not merit reversal unless it involves a substantial 

right and, after an examination of the entire cause, it affirmatively appears that it is more 

probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” People v Coy, 258 Mich App 1, 

12; 669 NW2d 831 (2003); MCR 2.613(A). After reviewing the record, I cannot conclude that 

the significance of the error rose to this level. First, defendant’s offer of proof suggested only a 

single deviation from the protocols. Moreover, as noted by the majority, the jury was not left to 

determine the truth of the allegations based on the taped interviews alone. Both the complainant 
-2- 

and her brother offered live testimony during which they were subject to cross-examination. In 

addition, defendant was able to present evidence in support of his assertion that the reason the 

children made the allegations was that his wife had coached them to do so. 

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         974,334
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,731,395
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,812,925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,039,682
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,773,243
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,812,925
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (1,673,700)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               963,037
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,472,063)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,472,063)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>