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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4740 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude debt held by 

certain insurance companies from capital assets. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 23, 2024 

Mr. TILLIS (for himself and Mr. CASEY) 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 exclude 

debt held by certain insurance companies from capital assets. 

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 ‘‘Secure Family Futures 

5 Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEBT NOT TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSET FOR APPLI7 CABLE INSURANCE COMPANIES. 

8 (a) EXCLUSION FROM CAPITAL ASSETS.—Section 

9 1221(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend10 ed— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4740 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph 

2 (7); 

3 (2) by striking the period at the end of para4 graph (8) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

6 paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(9) any note, bond, debenture, or other evi8 dence of indebtedness held by an applicable insur9 ance company.’’. 

10 (b) APPLICABLE INSURANCE COMPANY DEFINED.— 

11 Section 1221(b) of such Code is amended— 

12 (1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as para13 graph (5); and 

14 (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the fol15 lowing new paragraph: 

16 ‘‘(4) APPLICABLE INSURANCE COMPANY.—For 

17 purposes of subsection (a)(9), the term ‘applicable 

18 insurance company’ means, with respect to any tax19 able year— 

20 ‘‘(A) any insurance company other than an 

21 insurance company— 

22 ‘‘(i) with respect to which an election 

23 is in effect under section 831(b)(2)(A)(iii) 

24 or 835(a) for such taxable year, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4740 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) which is a foreign corporation 

2 described in section 842, or 

3 ‘‘(iii) which is an organization to 

4 which section 833 applies for such taxable 

5 year, or 

6 ‘‘(B) a face-amount certificate company 

7 registered under the Investment Company Act 

8 of 1940.’’. 

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

10 this section shall apply to dispositions after the date of 

11 enactment of this section. 

12 (d) TRANSITION RULE.—For taxable years beginning 

13 after the date of the enactment of this section, a taxpayer 

14 may treat a capital loss carryover properly attributable to 

15 the disposition of an asset described in section 1221(a)(9) 

16 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by sub17 section (a)) prior to such date as a net operating loss car18 ryover. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,464
<OTHER-SE>                                    (11,464)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (11,235)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               110,908
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 99,673
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             99,673
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    99,673
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .001
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .001



</TABLE>
No. 55270.

#### Armand Schmoll, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 974898-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISION SERVICE PLAN,

NO. CIV. S-04-1993 LKK/JFM

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

The court is in receipt of the government's request to correct

the September 20, 2005 order. Good cause appearing, the sentence

in this court's order filed September 20, 2005 at 1:20-23 is

AMENDED to read as follows:

“Although the deposition took place, the government directed

its witnesses not to answer and thus this will probably give rise

to a motion to compel answers to those questions.” 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 12, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-01993-LKK -JFM Document 71 Filed 10/13/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of the smaller reporting company of DAM Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Klein, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date: May 21, 2010








By: /s/ MARK KLEIN


Mark Klein


Chief Executive Officer and


Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Wired Associates Solutions Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jacqueline Winwood, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
13th day of September, 2010.


/s/ Jacqueline Winwood
---------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
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

JOSEPH A. SHERMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-S-04-2320 LKK EFB PS

vs.

CITY OF DAVIS,

Defendant. ORDER

__________________________________/

On November 9, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

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

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections, and

they were considered by the undersigned.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 41 Filed 12/22/06 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

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed November 9, 2006, are

ADOPTED; 

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), paragraphs 1, 3, and 5 of the Complaint

(challenging the validity of the arrests at Long’s Drugs, Albertson’s, and the Yolo County

Library, which are currently under habeas review) are dismissed for failure to state claim based

on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. at 486-87;

3. Defendant’s request to dismiss paragraph 6 of the Complaint (concerning the

arrest at Nugget Market on June 16, 2004) is granted in part with regard to the allegations

challenging the validity of the arrest, and is denied in part with regard to the allegations regarding

excessive force; 

4. Plaintiff’s request to stay the action pending resolution of the habeas petitions is

denied; and

5. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is denied.

DATED: December 21, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02320-LKK -EFB Document 41 Filed 12/22/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 59002.

protests 218963-K and 232458-K (New York).

#### Alfred Orlik, Inc., and Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the items of merchandise marked with the letter “A” were held dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1547 (a), Tariff Act of 1930, and the items marked with the letter “B” at 10 percent under the provision in said paragraph, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 52476), for “Works of art * * * statuary, sculptures, or copies, replicas, or reproductions thereof, valued at not less than $2.50.”
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

ANDRE RIDER, No. CIV S-04-1809-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

S. KERNAN,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21).

On February 7, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Petitioner 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. The findings and

recommendations will, therefore, be adopted in full. Petitioner’s request for an order staying the

instant proceedings and holding consideration of his claims in abeyance pending exhaustion of

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 21 Filed 03/22/06 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

state remedies (“stay-and-abeyance order”) will be denied.

The court now addresses respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9), filed on July

21, 2005. Respondent correctly notes that the petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted

claims and must be dismissed. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982). Given that the

court agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommendation that petitioner is not entitled to a stayand-abeyance order, the court also agrees that the instant petition must be dismissed. 

Respondent’s motion to dismiss will, therefore, be granted.

This dismissal, however, will be with leave to file an amended petition which

alleges only exhausted claims. Petitioner is cautioned that, if he does not file an amended

petition within the time provided herein which contains only exhausted claims, the entire petition

will be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court remedies. See id.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 7, 2006, are adopted in

full;

2. Petitioner’s motion for a stay-and-abeyance order is denied;

3. This action proceeds on the petition filed on August 30, 2004, which is a

“mixed” petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims; and

4. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is granted;

5. The petition filed on August 30, 2004, is dismissed with leave to file an

amended petitioner which alleges only exhausted claims; and

6. Petitioner shall file an amended petition within 30 days of the date of

service of this order.

Dated: March 21, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01809-GEB -CMK Document 21 Filed 03/22/06 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH THOMASON, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1996 GEB KJM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 29, 2005, the court stayed the action to allow

petitioner to exhaust state remedies on additional issues he wished to add to his underlying

habeas petition.

On November 29, 2005, petitioner filed a “request for a second amended petition”

and on January 26, 2005, he filed a second amended petition. In both he asked that the stay be

lifted and the new claims added.

In the first amended petition, filed May 31, 2005, petitioner raised one claim: the

court abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss one of his “strikes.” The second petition

contains the following grounds: (1) judicial bias as demonstrated by a number of rulings; 

(2) prosecutorial misconduct in meeting discovery obligations; and (3) ineffective assistance of

Case 2:04-cv-01996-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 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

appellate counsel in failing to raise these grounds on direct appeal. Petitioner does not include

his claim of sentencing error in this second amended petition, but rather asks the court to read the

first and second amended petitions together. 

Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended petition be complete in itself without

reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended petition

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

1. The stay entered on July 29, 2005 is hereby lifted; 

2. The second amended petition is dismissed and petitioner is given thirty days

from the date of this order in which to file a third amended petition, containing all the claims he

wishes the court to consider; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner a new habeas corpus form. 

DATED: May 16, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

thom1996.amd

Case 2:04-cv-01996-GEB -KJM Document 15 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 58531.

protests 153170-K, etc. (New York).

#### Browne Vintners Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *441*United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORT
JAMES CORPORATION DECEMBER 27, 1998 FORM 10-K FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000053117
<NAME> FORT JAMES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1998
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      892
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,954
<PP&E>                                           8,158
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,615
<BONDS>                                          3,647
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            22
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,792
<SALES>                                          7,301
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,301
<CGS>                                            4,965
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (101)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 289
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    766
<INCOME-TAX>                                       266
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (3)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       498
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.26
        



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONSI, Eugenio Lopez, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jafra Worldwide Holdings (Lux) S.àr.l.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.DateAugust 14, 2006       /s/ EUGENIO LOPEZ Eugenio Lopez    Chief Executive Officer  
58