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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4297 

To repeal the Corporate Transparency Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 9, 2024 

Mr. TUBERVILLE (for himself, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. LEE, Mr. 

SCOTT of Florida, Mr. BUDD, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. VANCE, and Mrs. 

HYDE-SMITH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal the Corporate Transparency Act. 

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 ‘‘Repealing Big Brother 

5 Overreach Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Corporate Transparency Act 

8 (title LXIV of division F of the William M. (Mac) Thorn9 berry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

10 2021 (Public Law 116–283; 134 Stat. 4604)) and the 

11 amendments made by that Act are repealed. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4297 IS

1 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 (1) Title 31, United States Code, is amended— 

3 (A) in section 5321(a)— 

4 (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘sec5 tions 5314, 5315, and 5336’’ each place 

6 the term appears and inserting ‘‘sections 

7 5314 and 5315’’; and 

8 (ii) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘(ex9 cept section 5336)’’ each place the term 

10 appears; and 

11 (B) in section 5322, by striking ‘‘section 

12 5315, 5324, or 5336’’ each place the term ap13 pears and inserting ‘‘section 5315 or 5324’’. 

14 (2) Title LXV of the Anti-Money Laundering 

15 Act of 2020 (division F of the of the William M. 

16 (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization 

17 Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116–283; 134 

18 Stat. 4604)) is amended— 

19 (A) by repealing section 6502 (134 Stat. 

20 4626); and 

21 (B) in section 6509 (134 Stat. 4633)— 

22 (i) by striking ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.— 

23 Subsection (l)’’ and inserting ‘‘Subsection 

24 (l)’’; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4297 IS

1 (ii) by striking subsection (b). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6820

VINCENT JOHN HALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CAPTAIN JOHNNY SAPP; NURSE CORA POUNCEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(6:06-cv-02476-RBH)

Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent John Hall, Appellant Pro Se. C. Heath Ruffner, HARRIS,

MCLEOD & RUFFNER, Cheraw, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Vincent John Hall appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. Hall v. Sapp, No.

6:06-cv-02476-RBH (D.S.C. May 16, 2007). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           7
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K FOR
THE YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           450,149
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            3,005
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                              3,059
<EQUITIES>                                       3,121
<MORTGAGE>                                      10,332
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   10,025
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 702,086
<CASH>                                          12,206
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              18,847
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          31,953
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,305,248
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                135,463
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              2,124
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 545,908
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           10,856
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,185
<OTHER-SE>                                     153,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,350,248
<PREMIUMS>                                      10,890
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             54,619
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   2,886
<BENEFITS>                                      38,367
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      2,128
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            14,853
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,586
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,467
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,119
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,119
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.49
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        


</TABLE>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

U.S. Department of Energy

Room IE-245

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) will present its methodology for the Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) analysis and example results. The Department also will

explain its plans for the remaining analysis-the analysis to support the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NOPR)-and will seek input from stakeholders on its planned methodologies,

assumptions, and data sources.

Agenda

9:00-9 :05 am Welcome

9:05-9:15 am Opening Remarks, Introductions and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9:15-9:30 am Rulemaking overview

Charles Llenza

Overview of the analyses in the rulemaking, the tools DOE uses

to generate results for each analysis, and the issues on which

DOE would like input during today's meeting.

9:30-10 : 00 am Comments from Participants

Doug Brookman

Open forum for participants to make a brief summary statement

and/or identify their key issues regarding the ANOPR analyses,

methods, and data.

10:00-11:15 am Engineering Analysis

Aris Marantan and Mike Christopher

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach

used and factors considered for the market and technology

assessment, screening analysis, and engineering analysis, and a

characterization of the results.

11:15-11:30 am Break

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.2
11:30 am-12:45 pm Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

David Winiarski and Mike Scott

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach

used and factors considered for the markups to determine

equipment price analysis, energy use characterization, life-cycle

cost and payback period analyses, and a characterization of the

results.

12:45-1 :45 pm Break for Lunch (on your own)

1:45-3:00 pm National Impact Analysis

David Winiarski and Mike Scott

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach

used and factors considered for the national energy savings, net

present value, and shipments analysis, and a characterization of

the results.

3:00-3:30 pm Discussion of Other Issues

Doug Brookman

Open forum to discuss any remaining questions or issues

identified by participants.

3:30-3:45 pm Break

3:45-4:30 pm NOPR Analyses

David Winiarski and Mike Scott

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the planned

revisions to the ANOPR analyses, and the planned approach and

factors that will be considered for the manufacturer, utility,

employment, and regulatory impact analyses, and the

environmental assessment.

4:30-5:00 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Aris Marantan and Charles Llenza

Participants will discuss outstanding issues and concluding

remarks.

5:00 pm Adjourn

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 13.2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS MARTEL, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0014 DFL PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 10, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

Case 2:04-cv-00014-ALA Document 12 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 10, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. Claims against defendants Cal A. Terhune, Tom Carey and the Department of

Corrections are dismissed without prejudice. 

Dated: 8/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

/mart0014.800

Case 2:04-cv-00014-ALA Document 12 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REX CHAPPELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

C.K. PLILER et al.,

Defendants.

No. 04-cv-1183 TLN DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 26, 2009, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 47) 

On June 11, 2009, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending that 

defendants’ motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 55) The district judge 

assigned to this case at the time conducted a de novo review of the case and noted that the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed this court’s decision in Norwood v. Vance, No. 2:03-cv2554 GEB GGH, on which the undersigned had relied on in issuing the pending findings and 

recommendations. (Id.) The plaintiff in Norwood had sought rehearing en banc, and the Ninth 

Circuit directed appellants to file a response. (Id.) Because the decision in Norwood was clearly 

relevant to the resolution of part of this action, the assigned district judge stayed the case. (Id.) 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01183-TLN-DB Document 85 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

On December 17, 2012, the court lifted the stay of this action because the Ninth Circuit had 

decided the motion for rehearing that had been filed in Norwood. (Doc. No. 63) 

In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Norwood and the passage of time since the court

issued its findings and recommendations, the court will direct the parties to file supplemental 

briefing with respect to their position on the application of the decision in Norwood to this case as 

well as their positions with respect to defendants’ motion for summary judgment generally. 

Thereafter, the undersigned will issue amended findings and recommendations on defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within forty-five days of the date of this 

order, the parties shall file supplemental briefs addressing the application of the decision in 

Norwood to this case and their positions with respect to defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment generally.

Dated: August 20, 2015

DAD:9

chap1183.supp

Case 2:04-cv-01183-TLN-DB Document 85 Filed 08/21/15 Page 2 of 2
# sec4_attribtable_2023

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2022-16	&"Arial,Bold"&9IV AT - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BSeptember 2022
No. 55921.

protest 172086-K (New York).

#### Kachurin Drug Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation that the merchandise consists of laurel leaves similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Levy & Levis Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(23 Cust. Ct. 8, C. D. 1180), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

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

      Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the
undersigned Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Extendicare Health Services,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

/s/ Mel Rhinelander
-------------------------------
Mel Rhinelander
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
August 6, 2004

/s/ Mark W. Durishan
-----------------------
Mark W. Durishan
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
August 6, 2004

                                       54
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIUS JONES, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0950 LKK CMK P

vs.

DAVE RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file an amended petition. Good

cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's August 28, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Petitioner is granted sixty days from the date of this order in which to file an

amended petition. The response shall be filed forty-five days thereafter.

DATED: September 21, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00950-LKK -CMK Document 36 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|                                         |                                                                                                                       |                                                                    |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: October 16,                  2006 | By:                                                                                                              | */s/                John B.                Gallagher*    |
|                                         | Name: John                  B. GallagherTitle:                     Co-Chief Executive                    Officer |

|                                         |                                                                                                                                                |                                                                   |
|----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: October 16,                  2006 | By:                                                                                                                                       | */s/                Harry D.                Shields*    |
|                                         | Name: Harry                    D. Shields                    Title:                       Co-Chief Executive                      Officer |

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

 

MICHAEL D. BURCH AND

THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE

OF MICHAEL D. BURCH,

Plaintiff(s),

vs. CIV-S-04-0038-WBS/GGH

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

DAVIS; et al.,

Defendant(s).

______________________________________/

 Plaintiff filed a discovery motion on May 31, 2005 set for hearing June 30,

2005 @ 10:00 a.m.. Notwithstanding the three days specified by E.D. Cal. L.R. 37-251 the joint

statement shall be filed in no later than five court days before the scheduled hearing.

Notwithstanding E.D. Cal. L.R. 5-133(f), if the joint statement is more than 25 pages, or the

attachments are longer than 50 pages, the copy shall be hand delivered or sent by overnight mail

to chambers on the day of filing. The filing deadline, accordingly, will be June 23, 2005.

The dispute may be organized by category, with specific discovery items attached,

if appropriate, as an exhibit. For each disputed category or individual item, include: (1) the

specific disputed discovery category or item; (2) the response; (3) the moving party’s position;

and (4) the opposition. E.D.Cal. L.R. 37-251(c)(3). Do not file separate briefing. Id.

Privilege objections must comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Except in

extraordinary circumstances, the party claiming privilege may not submit a post-hearing privilege

log. The failure properly to support a privilege objection with a privilege log may be deemed to

waive it. 

The moving party is responsible for filing the joint statement. The opposing party

nevertheless must timely draft and submit its portion. Failure of either party to use best efforts to

ensure timely filing will be cause for sanctions. 

Dated: 6/1/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 ___________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. Magistrate Judge

burch38.251

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 64 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

November 10, 1960

No. 64854.

#### Justin Tharaud & Son, Inc., and J. J. Murphy & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 161750-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Justin Tharaud & Son, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 216, C.D. 2177), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### ROUNTREE COTTON CO., INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-9009.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 29, 2001.

*642Before TACHA, Chief Judge, LUCERO, Circuit Judge, and BROWN,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the tax court’s order dismissing its petition for a redetermination of its tax liability for the years 1994 and 1995. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482 and affirm.

I.

The appellant taxpayer made interest-free loans to a variety of other entities in which the shareholders of the taxpayer owned an interest. During an audit, the Commissioner determined that the interest foregone on the interest-free loans should be imputed to the taxpayer pursuant to I.R.C. § 7872. Accordingly, he increased the taxpayer’s income for the taxable years of 1994 and 1995, which resulted in tax deficiencies for those years. The taxpayer petitioned the tax court for a redetermination of its tax liability for the years in question. The tax court ruled in favor of the Commissioner and this appeal followed.

II.

This case was decided on stipulated facts. We review a tax court’s conclusions of law de novo. *St. Charles Inv. Co. v. C.I.R*., 232 F.3d 773, 775 (10th Cir.2000).

The taxpayer made several arguments to the tax court in support of its general contention that the interest-free loans it made are not subject to the imputation rules of § 7872. The imputation rules apply to any “below-market loan directly or indirectly between a corporation and any shareholder of such corporation.” I.R.C. § 7872(c)(1)(C). The taxpayer argued that § 7872 applies only to loans by a corporation to its majority shareholder or to loans by a corporation to an entity in which one of the lending corporation’s shareholders owns a majority interest. As none of the recipients of the loans in question in this case are majority shareholders of the taxpayer, nor are any of the recipients entities of which a majority shareholder is also a shareholder of the taxpayer, the taxpayer argued that § 7872 cannot apply to the loans at issue. Applying traditional rules of statutory construction, the tax court *643held that the language of § 7872 was broad enough to encompass the facts of this case and ruled in favor of the Commissioner.

For substantially the same reasons given by the tax court, we agree that the interest-free loans made by the taxpayer are subject to the imputation rules of § 7872. Accordingly, the district court’s order of dismissal is AFFIRMED.

**

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.
No. 63059.

#### British West Indies Co. v. United States,

protests 126734-K and 152578-K(B) (Tampa).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protests were dismissed.