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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1858 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an investment 

credit for equipment used to fabricate solar energy property, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 10, 2011 

Mr. MENENDEZ 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 provide 

an investment credit for equipment used to fabricate 

solar energy property, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Solar Jobs Creation 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INVESTMENT CREDIT FOR EQUIPMENT USED TO 

7 FABRICATE SOLAR ENERGY PROPERTY. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

9 48(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1858 IS

1 energy property) is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end 

2 of clause (vi), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (vii), 

3 and by inserting after clause (vii) the following new clause: 

4 ‘‘(viii) equipment designed to be used 

5 for the fabrication of property described in 

6 clause (i) or paragraph (1) or (2) of sec7 tion 25D(d), including solar cells and mod8 ules that convert sunlight to electricity, but 

9 only with respect to periods ending before 

10 January 1, 2017.’’. 

11 (b) CREDIT PERCENTAGE.—Clause (i) of section 

12 48(a)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defin13 ing energy percentage) is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

14 the end of subclause (III) and by inserting after subclause 

15 (IV) the following new subclause: 

16 ‘‘(V) energy property described 

17 in paragraph (3)(A)(viii), and’’.

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

19 this section shall apply to periods after the date of the 

20 enactment of this Act, under rules similar to the rules of 

21 section 48(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as 

22 in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 

23 the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990). 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1858 IS

1 SEC. 3. ENERGY CREDIT ALLOWED FOR WATER HEATERS 

2 IN POOLS LOCATED ON COMMERCIAL PROP3 ERTY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 48(a)(3)(A)(i) of the In5 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘lo6 cated at a single family residence’’ after ‘‘swimming pool’’. 

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

8 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Parque La Quinta Estates (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Deborah J. Koeberl, Treasurer 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, 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.


Date: August 14, 2006



                                        By: /s/ DEBORAH J. KOEBERL
                                            ___________________________
                                                Deborah J. Koeberl
                                                Treasurer
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Harold L. Graves, Jr., Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00233

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 297th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 1338568R ). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no reversible error in the judgment

of conviction for murder in the court below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Also as stated in the Court ’ s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of conviction for tampering in the court below. We reverse the judgment of conviction for tampering and enter a judgment of acquittal.

We order that the appellant, Harold L. Graves, Jr., pay all costs of this appeal only as pertaining to the judgment of conviction for murder

. We order that the appellee, the State of Texas, pay all costs of this appeal only as pertaining to the judgment of acquittal for tampering.

RENDERED DECEMBER 1 1 , 2014 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBroadwind Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Cameron Drecoll, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 
| /s/ J. Cameron Drecoll     |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| J. Cameron Drecoll         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer    |   |
|                       |   |
| Date: August 14, 2008 |   |

 

 

----
#### Alfredo LLAGUNO and Mercy Llaguno, Appellants, v. ARI MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Appellee.

No. 97-3365.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 29, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 4, 1998.

Ress, Mintz & Truppman and Keith A. Truppman, North Miami, for appellants.

Adorno & Zeder and Raoul G. Cantero, III and William S. Berk, Coconut Grove, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ.

*312PER CURIAM.

Just as we held in *Perez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*709 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), “Upon the sole condition that the insured[s] file the sworn proof of loss required by the policy in support of ... [their] claim for additional insured damages, the order below denying appraisal is reversed on the authority of *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sierra,*705 So.2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), and the cause is remanded with directions to order appraisal”.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and LEVY, J., concur.

JORGENSON, Judge,

dissenting.

Although I agree that under the homeowners’ policy the parties are required, as a matter of law, to go to appraisal-arbitration to determine the amount of the insured loss-es, I do not agree that appraisal-arbitration is required in this case and therefore respectfully dissent.

Appraisal is conditioned upon the insured party’s compliance with the appropriate informational requests required by the policy in support of their claim for additional insured damages. *See Perez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*709 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(“Upon the sole condition that the insured file the sworn proof of loss required by the policy in support of her claim for additional insured damages, the order below denying appraisal is reversed on the authority of *Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sierra,*705 So.2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), and the cause is remanded with directions to order appraisal.”); *see also Pando v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co.,*No. 97-2978, slip op. at 7 (S.D. Fla. June 29, 1998)(noting that the *per curiam*opinion in *Perez,*709 So.2d 591, 23 Fla. L. Weekly at D848, supports the proposition “that the insured *must*comply with post-loss obligations before the insurer is required to submit to appraisal.”). Llaguno has not provided ARI with the sworn proof of loss required by the policy in support of their claim for additional insured damages.

ARI requested, pursuant to the policy conditions, that Llaguno provide a sworn statement of proof of loss, provide documentation supporting the supplemental claim, and submit to an examination under oath. Llaguno has not complied with any of ARI’s requests. Llaguno must comply with *all*these conditions of the policy before the appraisal clause is triggered. *See Perez,*709 So.2d 591, 23 Fla. L. Weekly at D848 (Cope, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); *see also Stringer v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.,*622 So.2d 145, 146 (Fla. 3d DCA)(“[T]he failure to submit to an examination under oath is a material breach of the policy which will relieve the insurer of its liability to pay.”), *review denied,*630 So.2d 1101 (Fla.1993).

I would affirm.
Searched for **http://www.cdc.gov/cdctv/healthyliving/healthyeating/tricky-treats.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.cdc.gov/cdctv/healthyliving/healthyeating/tricky-treats.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
No. 56770.

protest 172766-K (New York).

#### The Fan Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6058

MOSES BARNES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; STEPHEN D.

MULLER; MIKE EASLEY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-99-75-1)

Submitted: May 23, 2000 Decided: June 23, 2000

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Moses Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the magistrate judge relied upon Green v. French,

143 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 1998), denial of habeas corpus relief was

still correct under the standards announced in Williams v. Taylor,

529 U.S. , , 2000 WL 385369, *28 (U.S. Apr. 18, 2000) (No.

98-8384).

2

PER CURIAM:

Moses Barnes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Barnes v. North Carolina Attorney Gen.,

No. CA-99-75-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 1999).* 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
No. 49508.

#### Protests 105741-K, etc., of Austin Nichols & Co., Inc., et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 9664)

#### F. L. Kraemer & Co., for the a/c Naftone, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 769007.

Decided April 13, 1960

*Eugene R. Piclcrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster*and *Murray SJclaroff,*trial attorneys), for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has' been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> 1. That the merchandise covered by the above appeal for reappraisement, designated on the Consular Invoice as 2.4 Tolylene Diisocyanate Orthodichlor-benzol, is a coal-tar intermediate and is a mixture consisting of 85 percent of an impure 2.4 Tolylene Diisocyanate (otherwise known as 2.4 Toluene Diisocya-nate) and 15 percent of an impure Orthodichlorbenzol (otherwise known as Orthodiehlorbenzene) ;

> 2. That the imported merchandise, hereinafter referred to as the mixture, was appraised on the basis of the American selling price as defined in Section 402(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, at $1,125 per pound, net packed, by adding 85 per cent of the freely offered price at which the domestic commercial grade of 2.4 Tolylene Diisocyanate is sold in the United States to 15 per cent of the freely offered price at which the domestic commercial grade of Ortho-dichlorbenzol is sold in the United States;

> 3. That merchandise such as or similar to the mixture was neither offered for sale nor sold for home consumption in Germany at or about the time of exportation, and there is no foreign value for such or similar merchandise;

> *6554. That merchandise such as or similar to the mixture was neither offered for sale nor sold to all purchasers for export from Germany to the United States at or about the time of exportation, and there is no export value for such or similar merchandise;

> 5. That imported merchandise such as or similar to the mixture was neither offered for sale nor sold for home consumption in the United States at or about the time of exportation, and there is no United States value for such or similar merchandise;

> 6. That such or similar merchandise of domestic manufacture was neither offered for sale nor sold for home consumption in the United States at or about the time of exportation, and no domestic manufacturers of such or similar merchandise were willing to sell the same for home consumption in the United States at or about the time of exportation, and there is no American selling price for such or similar merchandise;

> 7. That the cost of production as defined in Section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 of the merchandise the subject of this appeal for reappraisement is Deutsehemark 6.576 per kilo, packing included:

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this appeal for reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold 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 value was deutsche marks 6.576 per kilo, packing included.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63
OF TITLE 18,

UNITED STATES CODE)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) (the Act),
I, Robert W. Harvey, President of Orion Power Holdings, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (a) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       |  |                     
|---------------------- |  | --------------------
|Date: November 4, 2004 |  | /s/ Robert W. Harvey
|                       |  | Robert W. Harvey    
|                       |  | President
```

[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]               
[Page 8424-8425]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-157]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6903]

 
Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Matisse: Radical Invention 1913-1917''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Matisse: Radical Invention 1913-1917,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Art Institute 
of Chicago, Chicago, IL, from on or about March 20, 2010, until on or 
about June 20, 2010; at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY, from on 
or about July 18, 2010, until on or about October 11, 2010; and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered 
to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/632-6473). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
5, L/PD, Fifth Floor, Washington, DC 20522-0505.


[[Page 8425]]


    Dated: February 18, 2010.
Maura M. Pally,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-3709 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on form 10-QSB of Futomic
Industries, Inc. for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, I, Francisco
Schipperheijn, Chief Executive Officer of Futomic Industries, Inc. hereby
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 and belief, that:

     1.   Such quarterly report of Form 10-QSB for the period ending March
          31, 2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended March 31, 2004, fairly represents in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Futomic
          Industries, Inc.


Dated:    May 17, 2004

FUTOMIC INDUSTRIES, INC.

By:  /s/ Francisco Schipperheijn
-----------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1755 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1755

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for coverage under 
the beneficiary travel program of the Department of Veterans Affairs of 
 certain disabled veterans for travel for certain special disabilities 
                rehabilitation, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 20, 2011

Mr. Tester (for himself and Mr. Begich) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for coverage under 
the beneficiary travel program of the Department of Veterans Affairs of 
 certain disabled veterans for travel for certain special disabilities 
                rehabilitation, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. COVERAGE UNDER DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS BENEFICIARY 
              TRAVEL PROGRAM OF CERTAIN DISABLED VETERANS FOR TRAVEL 
              FOR CERTAIN SPECIAL DISABILITIES REHABILITATION.

    Section 111(b)(1) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(G) A veteran with vision impairment, a veteran with a 
        spinal cord injury or disorder, or a veteran with double or 
        multiple amputations whose travel is in connection with in-
        patient care in a special disabilities rehabilitation program 
        of the Department.''.
                                 <all>
```