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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 905 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the taxable 

income limit on percentage depletion for oil and natural gas produced 

from marginal properties. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2007 

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate 

the taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil 

and natural gas produced from marginal properties. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF TAXABLE INCOME LIMIT ON 

4 PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FOR OIL AND NAT5 URAL GAS PRODUCED FROM MARGINAL 

6 PROPERTIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (H) of section 

8 613A(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 905 IS

1 to oil and natural gas produced from marginal properties) 

2 is amended to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(H) NONAPPLICATION OF TAXABLE IN4 COME LIMIT WITH RESPECT TO MARGINAL PRO5 DUCTION.—The second sentence of subsection 

6 (a) of section 613 shall not apply to so much 

7 of the allowance for depletion as is determined 

8 under subparagraph (A).’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### § 1917.92 Respiratory protection.

(See § 1917.1(a)(2)(x)).

[65 FR 40941, June 30, 2000]
#### Fred D. Smith et al., Respondents, *v.*American Automobile Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, and American Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant.

Argued May 28, 1937;

decided June 11, 1937.

*627
      *Harold B. Epp*for appellant.

*Sol Rubin*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Pinch and Rippey, JJ. Dissenting: Lehman, J.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–001 2014

113th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 113–154 

DEPLOYMENT OF U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL IN THE 

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

A LETTER INFORMING THE CONGRESS THAT APPROXIMATELY 20 

U.S. ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL WERE DEPLOYED TO THE 

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC TO SUPPORT THE RESUMPTION 

OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE U.S. EMBASSY IN BANGUI 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2014.—Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 

ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 11, 2014. 

Hon. JOHN A. BOEHNER, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: On September 10, 2014, approximately 20 

U.S. Armed Forces personnel deployed to the Central African Republic to support the resumption of the activities of the U.S. Embassy in Bangui. This force was deployed along with U.S. Department of State Diplomatic Security personnel for the purpose of protecting U.S. Embassy personnel and property. This force is expected to remain in the Central African Republic until it is replaced by an augmented U.S. Marine Security Guard Detachment 

and additional U.S. Department of State civilian security personnel 

as the security situation allows. 

This action has been directed consistent with my responsibility 

to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad, and in furtherance of U.S. national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant 

to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and 

as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. 

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution 

(Public Law 93–148). I appreciate the support of the Congress in 

these actions. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
#### § 1921.22 Computation of time.

Sundays and holidays shall be included in computing the time allowed for filing any document or paper under this part. When such time expires on a Sunday or legal holiday, such period shall be extended to include the next following business day.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 888 

To amend section 1091 of title 18, United States Code, to allow the 

prosecution of genocide in appropriate circumstances. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2007 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. COBURN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. 

FEINGOLD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 1091 of title 18, United States Code, 

to allow the prosecution of genocide in appropriate circumstances. 

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 ‘‘Genocide Account5 ability Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GENOCIDE. 

7 Section 1091 of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended by striking subsection (d) and inserting the fol9 lowing: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 888 IS

1 ‘‘(d) REQUIRED CIRCUMSTANCE FOR OFFENSES.— 

2 The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (c) 

3 is that— 

4 ‘‘(1) the offense is committed in whole or in 

5 part within the United States; 

6 ‘‘(2) the alleged offender is a national of the 

7 United States (as that term is defined in section 101 

8 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

9 1101)); 

10 ‘‘(3) the alleged offender is an alien lawfully ad11 mitted for permanent residence in the United States 

12 (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immi13 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); 

14 ‘‘(4) the alleged offender is a stateless person 

15 whose habitual residence is in the United States; or 

16 ‘‘(5) after the conduct required for the offense 

17 occurs, the alleged offender is brought into, or found 

18 in, the United States, even if that conduct occurred 

19 outside the United States.’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### C. C. Rawls, et al., Appellants, v. Arthur D. Hodge, Appellee.

Appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court for Marion County.

Appeal dismissed on pnecipe of counsel for Appellants.

R. L. Anderson, for Appellants;

W. K. Zewadski and R. McConathy, for Appellee.
&du/ E 4 0-/a7 o6, 0 z jea,ktijg 

Pia,),t41 4 ki/Atil Ja-un,1,4601 E PA- -0- - :2613 - 0 634-ik C' s,61-1-u1/4/e 

My name is Laura Montgomery. I live at 6385 E. Deerhollow Way in Norcross, 

GA. I am here to speak up for stronger EPA rules to limit carbon pollution from 

power plants and fight climate change. 

Power plants are the largest source of carbon emissions in the U.S. today and 

these standards are critically important in protecting public health and in 

reducing the effects of global warming. The new EPA rules will contribute to a 

much-needed transition to a cleaner electricity system. 

I know what it feels like not to be able to breathe. I have asthma. In the summer 

months the air quality is the worst. In June and July breathing is the most 

difficult. Every time the air quality alerts go into orange or red I get very 

congested and have an asthmatic cough. I get a headache. 

The unhealthiest days for asthma and other lung diseases are recorded by EPA 

by county for Fulton, Gwinnett, Cobb and deKalb. I don't even need to see the 

recorded air quality. I can tell by how I feel. 

Particulate matter or particle pollution, especially fine particles, can get deep 

into the lungs and cause serious health problems. Ground-level ozone is also a 

serious health pollutant. Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health 

problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion; 

It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground level ozone also 

can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated 

exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. Ozone is experienced as a 

burning of sensitive tissues. Even relatively low levels of ozone can cause health 

effects. People with lung disease, children, older adults, and people who are 

active outdoors may be particularly sensitive to ozone. 

I urge you to work quickly to strengthen and finalize strong standards for 

existing power plants and finalize standards for both new and existing power 

plants by June 2015.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 11066 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. MARQUIST THEOBLES WILLIAMS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 250

- 1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marquist Theobles Williams appeals the district court’s decision to revoke his term of supervised release. He argues that the district court erred by failing to consider substance abuse treatment, in lieu of incarceration, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, p.s., comment. (n.6)

. He also argues that his 24

- month term of imprisonment, which was above the

* 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 f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 25, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-11066 Document: 00515049990 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/25/2019No. 18

- 11066

2 guidelines range of 6 to 12 months of imprisonment , was substantively
unreasonable

. As Williams did not raise his argument under § 3583(d) and § 7B1.4, p.s.,

comm ent. (n.6) in the district court, our review is for plain error. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) . In addition to failing drug testing, which would implicate the § 3583(d) exception, Williams violated the conditions of his supervise d release by using and possessing cocaine, marijuana, synthetic marijuana, phencyclidine (PCP) , and alcohol , failing to appear for drug testing , and failing to attend counseling services

. Williams has failed to show any plain error. See, e.g., United States v. Smith , 672 F. App’x 461, 462 (5th Cir. 2017) (affirming revocation on similar grounds); United St ates v. Harper , No. 01

- 10623, 2002 WL 494731, at * 1

- 2 (5th C ir. Mar

. 15, 2002) (unpublished) ( same ); see also United States v. Guerre ro
- Robledo , 565 F.3d 940, 946 (5th Cir. 2009) (“It certainly is not plain error for the district court to rely on an unpublished opinion that is squarely on point.”). We review the substantive reasonableness of a challenged sentence for abuse of discretion. United Stat es v. Miller , 6 34 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). A revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court did not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper fact or, or made a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. United States v. Warren , 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). Williams ’s argument that his sentence is substantively unreasonable for the sole reason that the district court failed to take into account § 3583(d) fails to demonstrate an abuse of the district court’s wide sentencing discretion. See Miller , 6 34 F.3d at 84 3

. AFFIRMED. Case: 18-11066 Document: 00515049990 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/25/2019
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON DC 

) 

SKYDIVE MYRTLE BEACH, INC., ) 

Complainant ) 

) 

~ ) 

) 

HORRY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ) 

AIRPORTS, ) 

Respondent. ) 

ORDER 

FAA Docket No. 16-14-05 

On April22, 2016, counsel for Complainant, Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc., filed a Motion 

under 14 Code of Federal Register (CFR) § 16.19( a), requesting permission to withdraw 

representation of Complainant. 

Counsel certified that good cause exists for the withdrawal under the South Carolina Rules 

of Appellate Procedure. 

Accordingly, Complainant's motion is hereby GRANTED. 

Associate Administrator for Airports 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

--n f7--

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on June d l , 2016, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class, postage paid) a true copy of the foregoing ORDER addressed to: 

Complainant 

Aaron Holly, President 

Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. 

3032 Falls River Avenue 

Raleigh, NC 37614 

Counsel for Complainant 

Robert G. Eastman 

Eastman & Associates, LLC 

P.O. Box 180 

Charleston, SC 29402 

Counsel for Respondent 

David Y. Bannard, Esq. 

Jeffrey R. Blease, Esq. 

Jaclyn V. Piltch, Esq. 

Foley and Lardner LLP 

Ill Huntington A venue 

Boston, MA 02199 

Copies to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis (AC0-100) 

Electronic Docket (www.regulations.gov): FAA-2014-0538 

audia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance
§ 1626.7 Timeliness of charge. ( a ) Potential charging parties will be advised that, pursuant to section 7(d) (1) and (2) of the Act, no civil suit may be commenced by an individual until 60 days after a charge has been filed on the subject matter of the suit, and such charge shall be filed with the Commission or its designated agent within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action, or, in a case where the alleged discriminatory action occurs in a State which has its own age discrimination law and authority administering that law, within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory action, or 30 days after receipt of notice of termination of State proceedings, whichever is earlier.
( b ) For purposes of determining the date of filing with the Commission, the following applies: ( 1 ) Charges filed digitally: Date of transmission;
( 2 ) Charges filed by mail: ( i ) Date of postmark, if legible,
( ii ) Date of letter, if postmark is illegible,
( iii ) Date of receipt by Commission, or its designated agent, if postmark and letter date are illegible and/or cannot be accurately affixed;
( 3 ) Written charges filed in person: Date of receipt;
( 4 ) Oral charges filed in person or by telephone, as reduced to writing: Date of oral communication received by Commission.
[48 FR 140, Jan. 3, 1983, as amended at 68 FR 70152, Dec. 17, 2003; 85 FR 65219, Oct. 15, 2020]
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Kyocera Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: September 21, 2004



/s/ Yasuo NishiguchiName:

Yasuo NishiguchiTitle:

President and Representative Director(Principal Executive Officer)
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-2964

 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM206AD

A320-53-1268, R02 --- 7/15/2014

A320-53-1268, R01 --- 7/23/13

A320-53-1268 --- 1/8/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### SCAFF v. STATE.

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist., Lawrence Co.

Decided Nov. 13, 1928.

Irish & Riley, Ironton, for Scaff.

James Collier, Pros. Atty., Ironton, for State.

If the trial court believed this testimony of this witness it was sufficient to show possession on the part of Scaff regardless of how Scaff took possession of the bottle or from what place the bottle came. By this act Scaff assumed possession and control of the bottle whether it belonged to him or not, and by so assuming possession and control of the bottle he violated the law.

Middleton, P. J., Mauck and Thomas, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.32 Liquidation of collateral.

An agency holding security or collateral which may be liquidated and the proceeds applied on debts due it through the exercise of a power of sale in the security instrument or a nonjudicial foreclosure should do so by such procedures if the debtor fails to pay the debt within a reasonable time after demand, unless the cost of disposing of the collateral will be disproportionate to its value or special circumstances require judicial foreclosure. The agency should provide the debtor with reasonable notice of the sale, an accounting of any surplus proceeds, and any other procedures required by contract or law. Collection from other sources, including liquidation of security or collateral, is not a prerequisite to requiring payment by a surety or insurance concern unless such action is expressly required by statute or contract.
#### Salvatore Re, Appellant, *v.*E. Leon Diamond et al., Respondents.

Argued May 21, 1937;

decided June 8, 1937.

*607
      *Charles Berlin*for appellant.

*Avel B. Silverman*and *Herman Wiesenthal,*in person, for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Robert Y. Clark et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Clark & Davis, Respondents, against Reed W. Smith, as Comptroller of the Town of Harrison, Appellant.

Submitted May 17,1937;

decided May 18, 1937.

*494
      *Conrad H. Sullivan*for motion.

*Robert Y. Clark, Frank M. Gagliardi, William D. Cunningham*and *Alfred M. Bailey*opposed.

Motion denied, without costs, on the ground that appeal lies as a matter of right.
#### Mott *vs.*The Commissioners of Highways of Rush.

Albany,

March, 1839.

A common law certiorari, when served should be accompanied with a certified copy of the order of allowance, or a certificate of the clerk that the writ was duly allowed.

Motion to set aside a common law writ of *certiorari,*to remove proceedings had before the commissioners of highways relating to an encroachment, on the ground that the writ did not appear to have been allowed by the court. The papers in answer show that the writ was ordered by the court on an *ex parte*application, but notice of that fact was not given to the commissioners.

*A. Taber,*for the motion.

*S. Stevens,*contra.

*641
      *By the Court,*

Bronson, J.

A copy of the order of the court allowing the writ should have been served with it; or at the least, there should have been an endorsement on the writ that it was allowed by the court. Writs of this description do not, like many others, issue as a matter of course, and the officer to whom they are directed has a right to know that they have been regularly sued out. But this objection may be cured. by an amendment, and on that ground—

Motion denied.
#### In the Matter of David Kraus, Appellant, against John H. Delaney et al., Constituting the Board of Transportation of the City of New York, Respondents.

Submitted April 19, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*488
      *Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Paxton Blair*of counsel), for motion.

No one opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion unless undertaking is filed and appellant pays ten dollars costs within ten days, in which event the motion is denied.
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1212 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.842.4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

September 7, 2011 

via email and regulations.gov 

Esta Rosenberg 

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Joint Application of Delta, China Southern, and SkyWest 

 For a Statement of Authorization and an Amended Exemption 

 Dockets DOT-OST-1997-2653, DOT-OST-1999-5031, 

DOT-OST-2001-9314, and DOT-OST-2001-10172 

 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the 

application be granted as soon as possible. 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

cc: George Carneal, Counsel to China Southern 

Gerry Murphy, Counsel to SkyWest 

 info@airlineinfo.com
[No. 49510-1-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Renee V. Kaye, *Respondent,*and James P. Kaye, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 95-3-00131-9, Steven J. Mura, J., entered November 16, 2001. *Reversed in part*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit 99.1

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

In
connection with the Annual Report of Advanstar Communications Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Krakoff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Report, and as of the end of the period covered by the Report:



|By: |  | /s/ROBERT L. KRAKOFFRobert L. Krakoff
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2003 |  | 
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This
certification is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code. This certification shall not to be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to the
liability of that section. This certification does not constitute a part of Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A accompanying this certification and to which it is an exhibit.

---

QuickLinks