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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 688 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 688

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in 
                    tax on Social Security benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1999

  Mr. Salmon 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 repeal the increase in 
                    tax on Social Security benefits.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF TAX INCREASE ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 13215 of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 
1993 is hereby repealed, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be 
applied and administered as if such section (and the amendments made 
thereby) had not been enacted.
    (b) Effective Date; Waiver Rule.--
            (1) Effective date.--The repeal made by this section shall 
        apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993.
            (2) Waiver of limitations.--If refund or credit of any 
        overpayment of tax resulting from the application of the repeal 
        made by this section is prevented at any time before the close 
        of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
        this Act by the operation of any law or rule of law (including 
        res judicata), such refund or credit may nevertheless be made 
        or allowed if claim therefor is filed before the close of such 
        period.
                                 <all>
```
§ 105-8.150-2 Methods. ( a ) *General.* The agency may comply with the requirements of § 105-8.150 through such means as redesign of equipment, reassignment of services to accessible buildings, assignment of aides to beneficiaries, home visits, delivery of services at alternate accessible sites, alteration of existing facilities and construction of new facilities, use of accessible rolling stock, or any other methods that result in making its programs or activities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps. The agency is not required to make structural changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in achieving compliance with this section. The agency, in making alterations to existing buildings, shall meet accessibility requirements to the extent compelled by the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), and any regulations implementing it. In choosing among available methods for meeting the requirements of this section, the agency shall give priority to those methods that offer programs and activities to qualified individuals with handicaps in the most integrated setting appropriate.
( b ) *Historic preservation programs.* In meeting the requirements of § 105-8.105-1 in historic preservation programs, the agency shall give priority to methods that provide physical access to individuals with handicaps. In cases where a physical alteration to a historic property is not required because of § 105-8.105-1(b) or § 105-8.154 alternative methods of achieving program accessibility include— ( 1 ) Using audio-visual materials and devices to depict those portions of a historic property that cannot otherwise be made accessible;
( 2 ) Assigning persons to guide individuals with handicaps into or through portions of historic properties that cannot otherwise be made accessible; or
( 3 ) Adopting other innovative methods.
#### § 105-64.503 What is an accounting of disclosures?

The system manager maintains an account of each record disclosure for five years or for the life of the record, whichever is longer. The accounting of disclosure information includes the name of the person or agency to whom your record has been provided, the date, the type of information disclosed, and the reason for disclosure. Other pertinent information, such as justifications for disclosure and any written consent that you may have provided, is also included. No accounting needs to be maintained for disclosures to GSA officials or employees in the performance of their duties, or disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act.
At a meeting of the Board of Directors of The Ashton Technology Group, Inc.
held on October 22,  1996,  the first  paragraph  of Article V, Section 6 of the
By-Laws of Ashton was duly amended to provide in its entirety as follows:

     "The   chairman  of  the  board  shall  preside  at  each  meeting  of  the
stockholders  and  of  the  board  and  shall  be an ex  officio  member  of all
committees of the board.  He shall perform all duties  incident to the office of
chairman  of the board and such  duties as may from time to time be  assigned to
him by the board of directors.

     The president shall be the chief  executive  officer of the Corporation and
shall have the general and active  supervision  and direction  over the business
operations and affairs of the Corporation and over its several officers,  agents
and employees,  subject,  however, to the direction of the chairman of the board
and the control of the board of directors. At the request of the chairman of the
board,  or in the case of his absence or inability to act, the  president  shall
perform the duties of the chairman of the board, including presiding at meetings
of stockholders and directors and when so acting,  shall have all the powers of,
and be subject to all the  restrictions  upon,  the  chairman  of the board.  In
general, the president shall have such other powers and shall perform such other
duties as usually  pertain to the office of  president  or as may be assigned to
him,  from  time to time,  by the  board,  the  chairman  of the  board or these
by-laws."
Rockingham

No. 78-223

#### Shirley Durkin v. Paul Durkin

January 31, 1979

*Shute, Engel & Frasier,*of Exeter *(David C. Engel*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Fisher, Parsons, Moran & Temple,*of Dover *(Edward T. Clancy*orally), for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

The parties were divorced in November 1973. Plaintiff was awarded land and buildings in Greenland subject to a mortgage and also subject to defendant’s obtaining subdivision approval so that a lot could be conveyed to him. Thereafter, in January 1975, the parties agreed on a stipulation under which the property in question became the property of the defendant, subject to the right of plaintiff to live in the property upon paying rent, the defendant having the obligation to keep the property in repair.

*42In May 1978, plaintiff filed a motion to modify the decree relating to the ownership of the property, alleging that she was induced and coerced into signing the stipulation by fraud, duress, undue influence, deceit, and misrepresentation.

A Marital Master, *Nicholas G. Copadis,*Esq., recommended that the prayer that the court vacate the stipulation regarding the real estate be denied, “since it is a property settlement.” A decree in accordance with this recommendation was entered by *Bean,*J., who transferred plaintiffs exceptions.

 It appears that the master and the trial court ruled that under *Douglas v. Douglas,*109 N.H. 41, 242 A.2d 78 (1968), no modification of a property settlement could be made. However, the rule of *Douglas*does not apply when it is shown that a stipulation was signed due to fraud, undue influence, deceit, or misrepresentation. The matter must therefore be remanded for a hearing and a determination of the issues as matters of fact. *See Erdman v. Erdman,*115 N.H. 380, 341 A.2d 271 (1975).

*Exception sustained; remanded.*
STEVE T MALU

,

Appellant,

v.

HUDSON & KEYES, LLC

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 3011

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed August 16, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. James M. Colaw , Judge

.

Steve T Malu, pro se

, Appellant.

Kurt E. Ahrendt, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, Crawfordville; Jeffrey R. Becker, Jacksonville , for Appellee (no appearances)

.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED

.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and BILBREY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YOLVER ESTRADA

- MENDOZA, AKA Yolber Mendoza Estrada,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 70563

Agency No. A087

- 749

- 566

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA
, BYBEE , and WATFORD , Circuit Judges.

Yolver Estrada

- Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (“BIA”) order (i) dismissing his

appeal from an i mmigration j udge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of

removal
, and (ii) denying his motion to remand

. We have jurisdiction under 8

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

APR 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 70563

U.S.C. § 1252

. We review for abuse of discretion the decision to deem an

application abandoned and the denial of a motion to remand. Taggar v. Holder
, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for revi ew.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in deeming Estrada

- Mendoza’s

application for cancellation of removal abandoned, where he did not file the

application by the deadline imposed by the IJ. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (“ If an
application or document is not filed within the time set by the Immigration Judge,
the opportunity to file that application or document shall be deemed waived.”) ;
Taggar , 736 F.3d at 890

. To the extent Estrada

- Mendoza contends that ineffective

assista nce of counsel excuses his failure to timely file the application , he did not

meet the threshold requirements for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel

set forth in Matter of Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See Reyes v.
Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 592, 598

- 99 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding BIA’s denial of a

motion for failure to comply with the Lozada requirements).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Estrada

- Mendoza’s motion

to remand , where he has not established prima facie eligibility for cancellation of

removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986

(9th Cir. 2010) ( BIA may deny motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie

eligibility for reli ef

)

.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**ThePartners**Duke Realty Limited Partnership:

 

We consent toincorporation by reference in the registration statements No. 333-100571 onForm S-3 of Duke Realty Limited Partnership of our report dated January 29,2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Duke Realty LimitedPartnership and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, partners’ equity, and cash flows foreach of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, and therelated financial statement schedule III, which report appears in the December31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Duke Realty Limited Partnership.

 

 

KPMG LLPIndianapolis, IndianaMarch 25, 2003

 

----
ALLEN ORGAN COMPANY


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 Quarterly Report of Allen Organ
Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven
Markowitz, 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:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of
  section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
  1934; and
2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
  in all material respects, the financial condition and result
  of operations of the Company.



/s/STEVEN MARKOWITZ
Steven Markowitz
Chief Executive Officer
November 7, 2002
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 770

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to ensure that the National

Labor Relations Board does not decline to assert jurisdiction over the

horseracing and dogracing industries.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to ensure that

the National Labor Relations Board does not decline

to assert jurisdiction over the horseracing and dogracing

industries.

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

3 SECTION 1. BOARD JURISDICTION.

4 Section 14 of the National Labor Relations Act (29

5 U.S.C. 164) is amended by adding at the end the follow6 ing:

7 ‘‘(d) Notwithstanding any rule or regulation, the

8 Board shall not decline to assert jurisdiction over any
2

HR 770 IH

1 labor dispute involving the horseracing and dogracing in2 dustries.’’.

Æ
Table 1E To
  Purchase Agreement No. 1977
  Aircraft Delivery, Description, Price and Advance Payments
  [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]
  SA-34 Exercised Aircraft
  
  
  [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]
  
  
  
  [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]
  
  Table 1E To
  Purchase Agreement No. 1977
  Aircraft Delivery, Description, Price and Advance Payments
  [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]
  SA-34 Exercised Aircraft
  
  
  
  
  [CONFIDENTIAL PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]
  Page 2
 AAL-PA-01977   SA-34                                                                Boeing Proprietary
 54080-1F.TXT
# Comments on: 22-2205: CONTENT SQUARE ISRAEL LTD. v. DECIBEL INSIGHT, LTD. [ORDER], Nonprecedential
§ 105-69.400 Penalties. ( a ) Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited herein shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such expenditure.
( b ) Any person who fails to file or amend the disclosure form (see appendix B) to be filed or amended if required herein, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
( c ) A filing or amended filing on or after the date on which an administrative action for the imposition of a civil penalty is commenced does not prevent the imposition of such civil penalty for a failure occurring before that date. An administrative action is commenced with respect to a failure when an investigating official determines in writing to commence an investigation of an allegation of such failure.
( d ) In determining whether to impose a civil penalty, and the amount of any such penalty, by reason of a violation by any person, the agency shall consider the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, the effect on the ability of such person to continue in business, any prior violations by such person, the degree of culpability of such person, the ability of the person to pay the penalty, and such other matters as may be appropriate.
( e ) First offenders under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $10,000, absent aggravating circumstances. Second and subsequent offenses by persons shall be subject to an appropriate civil penalty between $10,000 and $100,000, as determined by the agency head or his or her designee.
( f ) An imposition of a civil penalty under this section does not prevent the United States from seeking any other remedy that may apply to the same conduct that is the basis for the imposition of such civil penalty.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
HISTORICAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN PAD & PAPER COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,806
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     99,952
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,361
<PP&E>                                         142,109
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 497,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          349,929
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           285
<OTHER-SE>                                    (89,387)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   497,595
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,691
<CGS>                                        (131,549)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (20,888)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (11,012)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,183)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (120)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,303)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,303)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.99)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1176

TY BUSCH; DONNA BUSCH, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versusOHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS; WILKERSON, Director; MOHR, Warden; VOINIVICH, Governor, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-98-302-V-3) Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 18, 1999Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ty Busch, Donna Busch, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ty and Donna Busch appeal the district court’s orders denying their motions to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing their action without prejudice. The district court assessed a filing fee and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. See Busch v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Corrections , No. CA-98-302-V-3 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 28, 1998). Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32

                            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  Quarterly  Report  of  AMREP   Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  each of
the  undersigned  does hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:  September 14, 2004

                                                    /s/ Peter M. Pizza
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  Peter M. Pizza
                                                  Vice President and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer

                                                    /s/ James Wall
                                                  ------------------
                                                  James Wall*

                                                    /s/ Michael P. Duloc
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  Michael P. Duloc*
--------------
*The Company is a holding company which does  substantially  all of its business
through  two  wholly-owned   subsidiaries   (and  their   subsidiaries).   Those
wholly-owned  subsidiaries  are AMREP  Southwest  Inc.  ("ASW")  and Kable  News
Company,  Inc. ("Kable").  James Wall is the principal executive officer of ASW,
and Michael P. Duloc is the principal  executive  officer of Kable.  The Company
has no chief executive  officer and its only executive  officers are James Wall,
Senior Vice  President and Peter M. Pizza,  Vice President and Michael P. Duloc,
who may be deemed an executive officer by reason of his position with Kable.