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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1441 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1441

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include wireless 
      telecommunications equipment in the definition of qualified 
 technological equipment for purposes of determining the depreciation 
                      treatment of such equipment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 21, 2005

  Mr. Thomas (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln) 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 include wireless 
      telecommunications equipment in the definition of qualified 
 technological equipment for purposes of determining the depreciation 
                      treatment of such equipment.

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

SECTION 1. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 168(i)(2) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified technological 
equipment) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'', 
and by inserting after clause (iii) the following new clause:
                            ``(iv) any wireless telecommunications 
                        equipment.''.
    (b) Wireless Telecommunications Equipment.--Section 168(i)(2) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Wireless telecommunications equipment.--For 
                purposes of this paragraph, the term `wireless 
                telecommunications equipment' means all equipment used 
                in the transmission, reception, coordination, or 
                switching of wireless telecommunications service, other 
                than cell towers, buildings, and T-1 lines or other 
                cabling connecting cell sites to mobile switching 
                centers. For this purpose, `wireless telecommunications 
                service' includes any commercial mobile radio service 
                as defined in title 47 of the Code of Federal 
                Regulations.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to property placed in service on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50692 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARTIN ESTRADA-RUEDA Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-97-CR-46

- - - - - - - - - - February 10, 1998 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Martin Estrada-Rueda appeals his sentence following a guilty plea for reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Estrada-Rueda argues that he was charged with and pleaded guilty to simple reentry following deportation under § 1326(a) and that he could not be sentenced under § 1326(b) because the indictment did not allege that he had a prior aggravated-felony conviction. His argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Vasquez-Olvera , 999 F.2d 943, 945-47 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
#### John Eugene WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-210.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 27, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and Paul J. Martin, Asst. Public Defender, Bar-tow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We set aside herein an order revoking appellant’s probation.

Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of felonious possession of cannabis and was placed on probation for five years by an order entered November 17, 1976. A special condition of the probation was that appellant enroll in the Serenity House Program, a drug rehabilitation program.

On December 3, 1976, appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit of violation of probation which charged appellant with:

> “Violation of Condition 1 which states that you will not change your residence without first procuring the consent of your probation supervisor, in that:

> On 11/28/76, the subject did leave his residence at Serenity House as *told this affiant by house manager Ernie Gert-ner.*

> Violation of Special Condition 9 which states that the defendant will enroll in the Serenity House Drug Rehabilitation Program, in that:

> Subject voluntarily left the program on 11/28/76, *as told this affiant by Ernie Gertner*— house *manager of Serenity House.”*(Emphasis supplied.)

A warrant was issued for the arrest of appellant for the aforesaid violations of the conditions of probation, and appellant was subsequently arrested. At the revocation hearing held January 3, 1977, the sole witness against appellant was his probation supervisor whose testimony consisted merely of a reiteration of the information set forth in his affidavit as quoted above, e. g., the house manager of Serenity House, Ernie Gertner, *told the witness*that appellant left his residence at Serenity House and the program on November 28, 1976.

Thereupon, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation1 and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. This was error.

It is well settled that revocation of probation cannot be based *solely*on hearsay. *Brown v. State,*338 So.2d 573 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); *White v. State,*301 So.2d 464 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Here, the only evidence to support the order of revocation of probation was the hearsay statements of the probation supervisor and, as such, is insufficient.

*413In view whereof, the order appealed from and the judgment and sentence entered thereon should be, and they are hereby, reversed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2391 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on bitolylene diisocyanate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mrs. SHAHEEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on bitolylene 

diisocyanate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BITOLYLENE DIISOCYANATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.01 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 bitolylene diisocyanate) is amended by striking the date 

7 in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2391 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Command Master Chief James H. Butler

### Command Master Chief, U.S. Navy Reserve, DLA Joint Reserve Force

### 

### 

Command Master Chief Butler a native of Hebron, Maryland, enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1988 through the Delayed Entry Program. In 1989, he graduated from Mardela High School and Basic Training in Great Lakes, Illinois. He later was an Honor Graduate from Senior Enlisted Academy (Class 12), Naval Leadership and Ethics Center, Command Leadership Course, and earned a bachelor’s degree in Accounting from National University.

Command Master Chief Butler completed Active Component sea duty assignments onboard USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) and USS Valley Forge (CG 50), and a shore tour with Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity, San Diego, California.

Reserve Component assignments include Inshore Boat Unit SEVENTEEN, Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit THREE ZERO THREE, 30th Naval Construction Regiment, Maritime Civil Affairs Squadron ONE, U. S. Navy Senior Enlisted Academy, Cargo Afloat Rig Team THREE, and Cargo Handling Battalion FOURTEEN.

Master Chief Butler served with Joint Logistics Task Force FIVE throughout Afghanistan, Qatar, Kuwait, and Germany as the Command Senior Enlisted Leader.

He is designated Expeditionary, Information, Seabee, Fleet Marine, and Surface Warfare Specialist.

Command Master Chief Butler has been awarded the Meritorious Service Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (3rd award), Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal (8th award), Combat Action Ribbon, and various other campaign, command, and personal awards.

Master Chief Butler became the Command Master Chief of Coastal Riverine Squadron ONE in April 2015.
#### Artis J. KELLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-76.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 2, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 7, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Frank B. Kessler, Chief, Appellate Division, Asst. Public Defender, and Nikki Ann Clark, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Paul H. Zacks and John Cecilian, Asst. At-tys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DOWNEY, C. J., concurs specially, with opinion in which CROSS J., concurs.

DAUKSCH, J., dissents with opinion.

DOWNEY, Chief Judge,

specially concurring:

A composite drawing of appellant was admitted into evidence at the trial. Appellant also offered in evidence a composite drawing of a co-defendant, but it was rejected. Through inadvertence the rejected composite found its way into the jury room together with the other properly admitted exhibits. Without the first suggestion of any prejudice accruing therefrom, appellant seeks reversal of his conviction because the jury was able to consider a composite of a co-defendant which appellant unsuccessfully attempted to have admitted into evidence. Surely it was error to allow the non-admitted exhibit into the jury room, but harmless within the meaning of Section 59.041, Florida Statutes (1977).

Accordingly, I agree that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

DAUKSCH, Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. The trial judge sent to the jury room a composite drawing of a face which drawing was not in evidence. Whether or not the jury was improperly motivated to convict the Appellant is not for me to say. I cannot know if the Appellant was injured by this error but it is error. *Smith v. State,*95 So.2d 525 (Fla.1957). F.R.Crim.Prac. 3.400(d). *State ex rel. Pryor v. Smith,*239 So.2d 85 (Fla. 1 DCA 1970).

I would reverse for a new trial.
Air Quality Policy Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 

Date: May 19, 2015 

Note to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0322: State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition 

for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions 

During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

On May 19, 2015, EPA staff held a conference call with the SSM Coalition, at its request, 

regarding the subject rulemaking. The following representatives of the SSM Coalition 

participated: 

Lorraine Gershman American Chemistry Council 

Tim Hunt and Paul Noe American Forest & Paper Association 

Barbara Ehimka American Petroleum Institute 

Bill Herz and Bob Hirsch National Lime Association 

Dave Ailor National Oilseed Processors Association 

Sarah Amick and Jesse Levine Rubber Manufacturers Association 

Russell Frye Counsel to the SSM Coalition 

 

Members of the SSM Coalition expressed their concerns regarding the implications of the 

proposed SIP calls on state and local air agencies and on their industries. They also expressed 

views regarding the legal basis for the proposed SIP calls.
#### Lowell OLER, Appellant, v. Duane J. SORENSON, Trustee, et al., Appellees.

No. 76-1923.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 29, 1977.

R. Thomas Corbin of Allen, Knudsen, Swartz, DeBoest, Rhoads & Edwards, Fort Myers, for appellant.

Richard Smith and Peter W. Martin of Stinnett, Surfus & Martin, Sarasota, for appellees.

OTT, Judge.

Appellant (buyer) and appellee (seller) entered into a one page written contract for the sale and purchase of a rental mobile home park. The contract was prepared in the form of an informal offer by the buyer which would ripen into a contract upon execution (acceptance) by the seller. Personal pronouns such as “I”, “my” and “you” were used in lieu of the usual terms to designate the parties.

Under the contract the buyer gave the seller a $10,000 check as a deposit for application to the total purchase price at closing.

The contract stated in relevant part that “. . .if consummation [closing] is prevented by my [buyer] failure to carry out this agreement, said V2 deposit will be retained by you [seller].” The contract was not closed due to the “failure” of the buyer. The seller refused to refund any portion of the deposit. This action resulted.

Under the above quoted uncontroverted language of the contract, the appellant (buyer) is entitled to a return of one-half of his deposit or $5,000.

We find no merit in appellant’s remaining points on appeal.

We therefore reverse the lower court, set aside the final judgment and remand this case for entry of a final judgment consistent with this opinion.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1485 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2005 

Referred to the Committee on Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to extend the 

authorization of certain leases. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

S 1485 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF 99-YEAR LEASES. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of the first section 

3 of the Act of August 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(a)), is 

4 amended in the second sentence— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘Moapa Indian reservation’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘Moapa Indian Reservation’’; 

7 (2) by inserting ‘‘the reservation of the Confed8 erated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,’’ 

9 before ‘‘the Burns Paiute Reservation’’; 

10 (3) by inserting ‘‘the’’ before ‘‘Yavapai-Pres11 cott’’; 

12 (4) by inserting ‘‘the Muckleshoot Indian Res13 ervation and land held in trust for the Muckleshoot 

14 Indian tribe,’’ after ‘‘the Cabazon Indian reserva15 tion,’’; 

16 (5) by striking ‘‘Washington,,’’ and inserting 

17 ‘‘Washington,’’; 

18 (6) by inserting ‘‘land held in trust for the 

19 Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation,’’ before ‘‘land held 

20 in trust for the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma’’; 

21 (7) by inserting ‘‘land held in trust for the 

22 Fallon Paiute Shoshone tribes,’’ before ‘‘land held in 

23 trust for the Pueblo of Santa Clara’’; and 

24 (8) by inserting ‘‘land held in trust for the 

25 Yurok tribe, land held in trust for the Hopland 
3 

S 1485 RFH 

1 Band of Pomo Indians of the Hopland Rancheria,’’ 

2 after ‘‘Pueblo of Santa Clara,’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 subsection (a) shall apply to any lease entered into or re5 newed after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Passed the Senate July 26, 2005. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
##### 



Exhibit 10.1.26
 TERRA INDUSTRIES INC.
DESCRIPTION OF COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS FOR 2006
APPLICABLE TO NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
  Annual Base Pay
 Michael L. Bennett
    
    $
    500,000President and Chief Executive OfficerFrancis G. Meyer
    
    $
    334,000Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerW. Mark Rosenbury
    
    $
    255,000Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative OfficerJoseph D. Giesler
    
    $
    224,000Senior Vice President, Commercial OperationsMark A. Kalafut
    
    $
    218,000Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
 Executive Retention Agreements
  Bonuses
EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with the Annual Report of State Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas F.
Goldrick, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive 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, 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.

2/24/04                                     /s/ Thomas F. Goldrick, Jr.
-------                                     ---------------------------
Date                                        Thomas F. Goldrick, Jr.,
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


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

In connection with the Annual Report of State Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian K. Finneran,
Secretary/Treasurer and Principal 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, 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.

2/24/04                                   /s/ Brian K. Finneran
-------                                   ---------------------
Date                                      Brian K. Finneran, Secretary/Treasurer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)
# R&D Advanced Microcircuit Emulation

/ Published July 25, 2023

                Advanced Microcircuit Emulation                            Advanced Microcircuit Emulation                            Advanced Microcircuit Emulation information paper            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Amber McSherryVIRIN: 200924-D-HW629-061

DLA Research & Development's Advanced Microcircuit Emulation (AME) program develops continuing technical capability for providing Military Specification (MIL-SPEC) form, fit and function equivalent IC’s to mitigate electronic obsolescence in new and existing weapons systems. That technical capability is transitioned to DLA Land and Maritime’s Generalized Emulation of Microcircuits program for implementation as a production capability.

## Innovation & Technology

      - Continued development of emulation capability for more complex IC’s as they become commercially obsolete
      - Improvements in IC design and processing and expansion of capability for providing replacements for Linear/Analog ICs

## Strategic Thrusts

      - Develop Microcircuit Emulation Capability
      - Ensure Microcircuit Case Supply

## Program Challenge

Microcircuit obsolescence has been a significant maintenance cost-driver within DoD for several years. As Industry introduces increasingly higher performance microcircuits, earlier product offerings become unprofitable and are discontinued. Used in the manufacture of electronic systems beginning in the 1960s, most of them are no longer in production and DLA Land & Maritime has identified increasing difficulty in procuring residual inventories of product which can be authenticated. The purpose of the project is to reverse that trend by establishing a continuing source of supply for those items.

## Benefits

The primary benefit of the program is to increase operational readiness by providing a continuing source of microcircuit spare parts. The secondary benefit is to reduce the need for costly redesign or replacement of systems and subsystems due to the lack of spares.

## Partners

      - DLA Land & Maritime
      - Generalized Emulation of Microcircuits Program
      - OSD Defense Microelectronics Cross-Functional Team

## Accomplishments and Ongoing Efforts

      - Complex application specific integrated circuits (ASIC’s)
      - 20-Volt Analog/Linear devices
      - Digital Logic and Memory from the 1970s, 80s and 90s
      - Military specification MIL-PRF-38535 (QML) parts

### Contact Us - Logistics.Research@dla.mil
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries II, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted 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.



Dated: January 15, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer

Big Sky Industries II, Inc.
# Robert Ratner

### Chief of Staff, DLA Troop Support

### 

### 

Mr. Robert A. Ratner is the Chief of Staff for the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support. DLA Troop Support annually buys more than $20 billion worth of food, clothing, textiles, medicines, medical supplies, and construction and equipment items for America's warfighters and other customers worldwide.Mr. Ratner assumed his current position in April 2010 after serving for over three years as the Director of the Command Support Office for Defense Supply Center Philadelphia. Prior to becoming a member of the civil service, Mr. Ratner served in the United States Air Force for just over 26 years, retiring as a colonel.He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in labor relations from Temple University in 1979 and a Master of Arts degree from Central Michigan University in 1985.Key military assignments include tours at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, the Pentagon, McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, as well as DLA assignments to include Executive Officer for the Defense Industrial Supply Center (DISC), Commodity Business Unit Director within DISC, and his last military assignment as Defense Supply Center Philadelphia's Chief of Staff.A 1986 graduate of the Defense Systems Management College (DSMC) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, Mr. Ratner is certified as a Level III acquisition officer in program management.