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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1376 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1376

  To conform income calculations for purposes of eligibility for the 
 refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan and for 
      Medicaid to existing Federal low-income assistance programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 18, 2011

Mr. Enzi (for himself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To conform income calculations for purposes of eligibility for the 
 refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan and for 
      Medicaid to existing Federal low-income assistance programs.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF 100 PERCENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND TIER I 
              RAILROAD RETIREMENT BENEFITS IN INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF 
              ELIGIBILITY FOR THE REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR COVERAGE UNDER 
              A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN AND FOR MEDICAID.

    (a) Definition of Modified Adjusted Gross Income.--Subparagraph (B) 
of section 36B(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the comma;
            (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``, and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(iii) an amount equal to the portion of 
                        the taxpayer's social security benefits (as 
                        defined in section 86(d)) which is not included 
                        in gross income under section 86 for the 
                        taxable year.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
December 20, 1960

Reap. Dec. 9883.

#### M. M. DuPouey *v.*United States,

REHEARING MOTION DENIED

Entered at New Orleans, La. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
Exhibit 21.1

                         WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT, INC.


                         UNITED STATES SUBSIDIARIES

WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT, INC.
OWNS 100% OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OR
MEMBERSHIP INTERESTS OF THE FOLLOWING:

         Penn-Grover Envelope Corp., a New York corporation
         Hano Document Printers, Inc., a Virginia corporation
         SFI of Delaware, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
         Pacific Admail, Inc., a California corporation
         DirectPro LLC, a New York limited liability company
         United Envelope, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
         Premier Graphics, Inc., a South Carolina corporation
         Freedom Graphic Services, Inc., a New Jersey corporation
         TLB, Inc., a Virginia corporation
         Workflow Management Acquisition Corp., a New Jersey corporation

SFI OF DELAWARE, LLC
OWNS 100% OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF THE FOLLOWING:

         Superior Graphics, Inc., a New York corporation
         Graphic Management Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation
         SFI of Puerto Rico, Inc., a Delaware corporation

UNITED ENVELOPE, LLC
OWNS 100% OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF THE FOLLOWING:

         Huxley Envelope Corp., a New York corporation
         Rex Envelope Co., Inc., a New York corporation
         Pocono Envelope Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation
         Astrid Offset Corp., a New York corporation

WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT ACQUISITION CORPORATION OWNS 100% OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK
OF THE FOLLOWING:

         Universal Folding Box Co., Inc., a New York corporation


DIRECTPRO LLC
OWNS 100% OF THE MEMBERSHIP INTEREST OF THE FOLLOWING:
         DirectPro West LLC, an Ohio limited liability company



<PAGE>

                      CANADIAN SUBSIDIARIES


WORKFLOW MANAGEMENT, INC.
- OWNS 100% OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF THE FOLLOWING:

         1186202 Ontario Limited, an Ontario corporation

- OWNS 100% OF THE CLASS A SHARES OF THE FOLLOWING:

         3303471 CANADA, INC., A CANADIAN FEDERAL CORPORATION

- OWNS 36.78% OF THE CLASS B, C AND D SHARES OF THE FOLLOWING:

         Data Business Forms Limited, an Ontario corporation


1186202 ONTARIO LIMITED
OWNS 100% OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE FOLLOWING:

         3303471 CANADA, INC., A CANADIAN FEDERAL CORPORATION


3303471 CANADA, INC.
OWNS 63.22% OF THE CLASS B, C AND D SHARES OF THE FOLLOWING:

         Data Business Forms Limited, an Ontario corporation


DATA BUSINESS FORMS LIMITED
- OWNS 11.5% OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF THE FOLLOWING:

         Sundog Printing Limited, an Alberta corporation

- OWNS 100% OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF THE FOLLOWING:

         517244 Alberta, Ltd., an Alberta corporation

- OWNS 100% OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF THE FOLLOWING:

         408446 Alberta, Inc., an Alberta corporation


517244 ALBERTA, LTD.
OWNS 25.0% OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF THE FOLLOWING:

         Sundog Printing Limited, an Alberta corporation

408446 ALBERTA, INC.
OWNS 63.5% OF THE OUTSTANDING STOCK OF THE FOLLOWING:

         Sundog Printing Limited, an Alberta corporation
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 2261** 

MICHAEL WALTON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. LOCKHEED MARTIN AIRCRAFT CENTER , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Distr ict of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:09

- cv - 00462

- HMH )

Submitted : January 13, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opini on . Michael Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Wendy Lyn Furhang, Stephanie E. Lewis, Andreas Neal Satterfield, Jr., JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mi chael Walton appeals the district court ’ s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation granting summary judgment in favor of Lockheed Martin on Walton’s Title VII and breach of contract claims . We have reviewed the record and find no re versible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Walton v. Lockheed Martin Aircraft Ctr. , No. 6:09

- cv - 00462

- HMH (D.S.C. Oct. 7, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequat ely presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.1



[ex991002.gif]

















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM









The Board of Directors

Desert Sun Mining Corp.







We consent to the use of our report dated February 21, 2006 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Desert sun Mining Corp. as at December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the consolidated statements of shareholders equity, operations and deficit and cash flows for the twelve-month period ended December 31, 2005, the sixteen-month period ended December 31, 2004, and the twelve-month period ended August 31, 2003, included in this annual report on Form 40-F.







McGovern, Hurley, Cunningham, LLP

[ex991004.gif]

Chartered Accountants





Toronto, Canada

February 21, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

m 99-30790

_______________

LOUISIANA SEAFOOD MANAGEMENT COUNCIL, INC.; JOHN THOMPSON;

EDDIE LEJUINE; MATTHEW REAGAN; CLARA GERICA; TODD STIPELCOVICH;

BARRY SCHAFERKOTTER; DAVID MILLS; CHRISTON CHERAMIE;

PETER STEVEN HOTOPH; EUGENE HICKMAN; CHAD LAY; LINDBERG SANTINI;

NED F. MALLEY, JR.; AND BARISICH, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

MURPHY J. FOSTER, JR., GOVERNOR; RICHARD P. IEYOUB, ATTORNEY GENERAL; JOE

HERRING; CHARLES CLARK; PETER VUJNOVICH; JOHN F. SCHNEIDER;

PETTY GISCLAIR; DANIEL BABIN; JOSEPH P. CORMIER; GLYNN CARVER;

WYNTON VIDRINE; LOUISIANA WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES COMMISSION;

AND LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-106)

_________________________

December 11, 2000
2

Before POLITZ, SMITH, and PARKER,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The plaintiffs challenge a state statute. In a

comprehensive opinion, the district court

dismissed the complaint as barred by the

doctrine of res judicata. 

We have reviewed the briefs and applicable

law and pertinent portions of the record and

have heard the arguments of counsel. We

agree with the district court’s persuasive

reasoning, and we affirm, essentially for the

reasons stated by the district court, with the

exception ofits discussion ofjudicial estoppel,

which was not necessary to the result.

AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has

determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, H. Douglas Chaffin, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted
pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ H. Douglas Chaffin
-------------------------------------
H. Douglas Chaffin
Chief Executive Officer
August 7, 2006
(Reap. Dec. 8455)

Entry No. 748.

#### Charleston Overseas Forwarders, Inc., as Agents for Offner Electronics, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided June 24, 1955)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General *(Dorothy C. Bennett,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of certain electrical equipment, exported from Denmark on or about March 6, 1954. The merchandise was appraised as entered on July 8, 1954, and this appeal was filed on September 8, 1954.

When this case was called for trial, there was no appearance on the part of the plaintiff and counsel for the Government moved to dismiss it on the ground that the appeal was untimely. Counsel pointed out that the appeal was filed more than 30 days after appraisement, and, since there had been no advance in value, that there was no reason *528to send a notice of appraisement and none was sent. Counsel also stated that there was an increase in the amount of duties, due by reason of an error in computation made on the entry; that, in computing the applicable rate of *17%*per centum ad valorem upon the entered and appraised value, the entrant had computed it as $411.90, whereas the correct computation was $480.55. The official papers herein support these statements.

While an appeal for reappraisement will lie eyen in cases where the collector is not required to give notice of appraisement, such appeal must be taken within 30 days after the date of appraisement. *Crittall, Inc.*v. *United States,*29 Cust. Ct. 524, Reap. Dec. 8189. Since the appeal herein was not taken within that period, it is untimely and must be dismissed. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
99-0592 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Paul J. WALTERS, D.D.S. v. Durinda L. ROBINSON.

No. 99-CC-0592.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Robinson, Durinda L.; — Defendants); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Orleans Civil District Court Div. “G” Number 97-9483; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number 98CW-2848

Denied.

VICTORY, J. not on panel.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-76738, 333-108752,
333-111287, 333-116696, 333-118187, 333-123619, 333-131332, 333-134084, 333-140119, 333-160123 and 333-160126; Form S-8 Nos. 333-58168, 333-100077, 333-120061, 333-136126, 333-142938,
333-150769, 333-156035 and 333-161559;) of Inovio Biomedical Corporation and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated March 26, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Inovio Biomedical Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLPSan Diego, CaliforniaMarch 26, 2010


---



QuickLinks
(Reap. Dec. 9874)

#### Copease Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 951089-1/2.

(Decided December 15, 1960)

*Eugene R. Piehrell*for the plaintiff.

*George CoehranDoub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the merchandise covered by the above appeal for reappraisement consists of Sensitized Paper and Unsensitized Paper designated on the invoices as OpN, OpG, CpG-N, OpN-G or CpP, which was exported from Western Germany during the year 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that during the year 1956 such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of Western Germany; that during the year 1956 such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Western Germany for export to the United States; and that during the year 1956 such or similar merchan*595dise was not freely offered for sale in the principal market of the United States to all purchasers.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the “cost of production” as defined in Section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 for such merchandise during 1956 was as follows:

> Invoice description Cost of production

> OpP Invoice unit values, less 20% plus 34.65% packed

> CpG, CpG-N, or OpN-G Invoice unit values, less 20% packed

> OpP Invoice unit values, less 20% packed

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above appeal for reappraisement is abandoned as to any other merchandise listed on the invoices, and that this appeal may be deemed to be submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were, during 1956, as follows:

> Invoice description Cost of production

> CpN Invoice unit values, less 20%, plus 34.65% packed

> OpG, OpG-N, or OpN-G Invoice unit values, less 20% packed

> CpP Invoice unit values, less 20% packed

As to all other merchandise listed on said invoices, the appeal for reappraisement having been abandoned, the same is dismissed. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v WILLIAM E. DeLAUDER, Sergeant First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 656, 25 CMR 160

*657No. 10,799

Decided January 31, 1958

*Colonel Edward M. O’Connell*and *First Lieutenant Herbert R. Brown*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*and *First Lieutenant Jon R. Waltz*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The Government concedes that the accused was deprived of his right to counsel during the Article 32 investigation and that his motion for appropriate relief on that ground at the trial was improperly denied. The record shows that a lawyer was appointed to represent the accused. However, he was not provided with a copy of the charges and he was not told of the time and the place of the hearing. Moreover, he was directed not to communicate with the victims of the alleged assault, although they were the principal prosecution witnesses. It is clear, therefore, that the Government’s concession is proper.

The findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General for reference to a competent convening authority, who may, in his discretion, order another Article 32 investigation and take such other proceedings, including a rehearing, as may be justified by the investigating officer’s report and the evidence. See United States v Tomaszewski, 8 USCMA 266, 24 CMR 76; United States v Nichols, 8 USCMA 119, 23 CMR 343.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Stephen Woodhead, Chief Financial Officer of Desert Sun Mining Corp.. (the Company) do 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. This Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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: June 30, 2005





/s/ Stephen Woodhead

Stephen Woodhead

Chief Financial Officer
Date: 27 December, 2007

To:   (1) Hutchison Telecommunications Investment Holdings Limited ("HTIHL")
      (2) Hutchison Whampoa Limited ("HWL")

Dear Sirs,

Re: Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited ("HTIL")

We refer to the agreement dated 4 December 2007 (the "Sale and Purchase
Agreement") and entered into amongst HTIHL, HWL, Orascom Telecom Holding S.A.E.
and Orascom Telecom Eurasia Limited relating to the sale and purchase of
441,026,028 ordinary shares of nominal value HK$0.25 each in the issued share
capital of HTIL. Terms used in this Letter shall have the same meanings as
defined or ascribed thereto in the Sale and Purchase Agreement.

Under Clause 1.1 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement, "Closing Date" is defined
to mean "4 January 2008 or such earlier date as the parties hereto may agree in
writing". We hereby write to request that you agree to Closing occurring on an
earlier date, i.e. 3 January 2008. All other terms and conditions of the Sale
and Purchase Agreement remain in full force and effect and unaffected by this
letter agreement.

Please would you indicate your agreement to the above by signing and returning
to us the duplicate of this Letter, which will form and constitute, and is to be
construed as, part of the Sale and Purchase Agreement.


 Yours faithfully
  For and on behalf of                     For and on behalf of
  Orascom Telecom Eurasia Limited          Orascom Telecom Holding S.A.E.


/s/ Naguib Sawiris                         /s/ Naguib Sawiris
------------------------                   ------------------------
Name:  Naguib Sawiris                      Name:  Naguib Sawiris
Title: Director                            Title: Chairman and CEO


Confirmed and agreed:
 For and on behalf of                      For and on behalf of
 Hutchison Telecommunications              Hutchison Whampoa Limited
 Investment Holdings Limited

/s/ Susan Chow                             /s/ Susan Chow
------------------------                   -------------------------------------
Name:  Susan Chow                          Name:  Susan Chow
Title: Director                            Title: Deputy Group Managing Director
No. 44303.

#### Petitions 5935-R, etc., of Mexican Products Co. (Laredo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The question at issue appears to be whether a 25 percent commission was a proper deductible item. From the record it was found that the goods were entered at what the petitioner believed was the price at which the merchandise was freely offered for sale in the principal markets of Mexico at the time of shipment. Being of the opinion that there was no intention to misrepresent the facts or defraud the revenue the court granted the petitions.
Other

573.20074
From: Muldoon, Albert (OST)

To: Rich Sewell (rich.sewell@alaska.gov); Alaska DOT, Linda Bustamante ; "cityofatka@gmail.com";

"atkaira@gci.net"; "nvnikolski@hotmail.com"

Cc: Servant Air, Wes Osowski (FlyKodiak@Yahoo.com); Grant Aviation, Bruce McGlasson

(BMcGlasson@FlyGrant.com); Schlemmer, Kevin (OST)

Subject: Essential Air Service at Atka and Nikolski, Alaska - Request for Comments - Due June 18, 2014

Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014 3:56:15 PM

Attachments: Grant Aviation Proposal to provide EAS Atka - Nikolski Alaska Docket DOT-OST-1995-363 .pdf

Servant Air Atka Nikolski Propsal.pdf

All,

Please find attached to this email the proposals of Grant Aviation, Inc. (Grant) and Servant Air, Inc.

(Servant) to provide Essential Air Service at Atka and Nikolski, Alaska, for a new contract period

beginning October 1, 2014. These were the only proposals received and can also be accessed at

www.regulations.gov by searching for docket DOT-OST-1995-363. I have briefly summarized the

proposals below.

Grant (the incumbent) proposes to continue its existing level of service with three weekly roundtrips

between Atka and Dutch Harbor, and two weekly roundtrips between Nikolski and Dutch Harbor. Grant

will also continue to utilize twin-engine, nine-passenger King Air B-200 aircraft. For this proposal,

Grant requests a combined annual subsidy of $1,352,284.

Servant also proposes to provide three weekly nonstop roundtrips between Atka and Dutch Harbor, and

two weekly roundtrips between Nikolski and Dutch Harbor, utilizing twin-engine, nine-passenger King

Air B-200 aircraft. For this proposal, Servant requires a combined annual subsidy of $1,978,103.

The comments of the communities and the state are a critically important element in our carrierselection decision. We ask that you and any other interested parties carefully review the proposals and

provide us with any comments no later than June 18, 2014. We will docket this email as well as any

comments received. Please feel free to contact myself or the carriers with any questions.

Regards,

A.J.

A.J. Muldoon

Transportation Industry Analyst

Office of Aviation Analysis

U.S. Department of Transportation

albert.muldoon@dot.gov

(202) 366-1058
Exhibit 99.2

                               FREEMAN & DAVIS LLP
                          Certified Public Accountants

Harold N. London, CPA                           225 West 34th Street, Suite 320
Robert H. Feldstein, CPA                        New York, N.Y.  10122-0397
Stuart H. Levitt, CPA                           Telephone: 212-594-8155
Gerald Lubowsky, CPA                            Telecopier: 212-465-0520
Arthur Schwartzman, CPA
Mark B. Feldstein, CPA
Philip J. London, CPA
Stace N. Balitsos, CPA
Richard J. Wolbrom



                                  July 18, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission              450 5th Street, N.W.
                                                Washington, DC 20549

Gentlemen:

We have read and agree with the comments in Item 4 of Amended Form 8-K/A of
Indigo Energy, Inc. (Commission File Number 811-3584) dated July 10, 2002.



Freeman & Davis LLP
New York, New York
July 18, 2002