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

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. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIP4 MENT. 

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

6 168(i)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining 

7 qualified technological equipment) is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at 
2 

•S 1441 IS

1 the end of clause (iii) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by insert2 ing after clause (iii) the following new clause: 

3 ‘‘(iv) any wireless telecommunications 

4 equipment.’’. 

5 (b) WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIP6 MENT.—Section 168(i)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code 

7 of 1986 is amended by inserting after subparagraph (C) 

8 the following new subparagraph: 

9 ‘‘(D) WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

10 EQUIPMENT.—For purposes of this paragraph, 

11 the term ‘wireless telecommunications equip12 ment’ means all equipment used in the trans13 mission, reception, coordination, or switching of 

14 wireless telecommunications service, other than 

15 cell towers, buildings, and T–1 lines or other 

16 cabling connecting cell sites to mobile switching 

17 centers. For this purpose, ‘wireless tele18 communications service’ includes any commer19 cial mobile radio service as defined in title 47 

20 of the Code of Federal Regulations.’’. 

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

22 this section shall apply to property placed in service on 

23 or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22833]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

August 15, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Special Request

    In order to begin the survey described below during October-
November 1997, the Department of the Treasury is requesting that the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approve this 
information collection by August 27, 1997. To obtain a copy of this 
study, please contact the Internal Revenue Service Clearance Officer at 
the address listed below.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1349.
    Project Number: SOI-32.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: 1997 Third Quarter Form 941 TeleFile System Customer 
Satisfaction Survey.
    Description: The 941 TeleFile system will be pilot tested at the 
Tennessee Computing Center during October-November 1997. During the 
test, a selected group of businesses filing their third quarter Federal 
tax return (Form 941) will be invited to use the 941 TeleFile system. 
The 941 TeleFile automated customer satisfaction survey is part of the 
941 TeleFile Quality Measurement Plan and is designed as one means of 
evaluating the effectiveness of the TeleFile system. The survey 
requests information about satisfaction and whether the business filer 
would be willing to use the TeleFile system again. Data collected 
during the surveys will be kept confidential and will only be used to 
make recommendations and improvements to the 941 TeleFile system.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,125.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 1 minute.
    Frequency of Response: Quarterly.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 36 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Dale A. Morgan,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-22833 Filed 8-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# DLA Distribution Commanding General's 2017 African American History Month Message

/ Published Feb. 7, 2017
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
DLA Distribution Team,

Throughout the month of February, we celebrate African American History Month.  This is a time to pay tribute to the generations of African Americans who contributed so much to American culture.  Our month-long tribute started with Carter G. Woodson, who founded Negro History Week in 1925.  It was later expanded to a month in 1976 by President Gerald Ford, who encouraged Americans to “seize the opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of black Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history.”

This year's theme for African American History Month is, "Success Always Leaves Footprints." This quote is attributed to Booker T. Washington, founder of the Tuskegee Institute, an institution which served as a model of excellence to illustrate that blacks could meaningfully contribute to our American society -- even under the most challenging conditions -- when provided the opportunity.  The Institute became world-renowned as the training ground for the Tuskegee Airmen, U.S. Army Air Corps heroes of World War II.  Today, Tuskegee University is a bastion of higher education and continues to deliver upon Booker T. Washington's vision of lifting the veil of ignorance through education, determination, and self-reliance.     

Each of us can draw strength from the wealth of stories highlighting African Americans achievements.  Our American values have continued to evolve over time, sometimes facing difficult trials...and we have proven that when we work together toward a common purpose, we can achieve anything and we create a positive future for everyone.  I ask each of you to think about a way that you can honor African Americans this month.  Visit a local museum, volunteer in the community, or learn about a piece of our African American history, like the Tuskegee Airmen or Frederick Douglass.  No matter how you choose to honor African American History Month, please do it safely because each of you are valued members of the DLA Distribution team.     

Ms. Gonzales and I want to thank you for the exceptional work you continue to do to support our customer, the Warfighter, around the world.  We are proud to be part of the Distribution team which always delivers the Right Things...at the Right place, at the Right time!

v/r,

BG John S. Laskodi
Commanding General
DLA Distribution

We are DLA - America's Combat Logistics Support Agency!
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification**

I, Michael J.Degen, certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of Nortech Systems, Inc. andSubsidiary;

2.                Based on myknowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)                Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)               Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport on such evaluation; and

c)                Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a)                All significantdeficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)               Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: March 15, 2005 | By:      | /s/ MICHAEL J. DEGEN         |   |
|---------------------------|----------|------------------------------|--------|
|                      |     | Michael J. Degen             |
|                      | * * | *Chief Executive Officer*    |
|                      | * * | Nortech Systems Incorporated |

 

1

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22506]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97-ASW-07]


Revision of Class E Airspace; Athens, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
which revises the Class E airspace at Athens, TX. The development of a 
Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) Standard Instrument Approach 
Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 17 at Lochridge Ranch Airport has made 
this rule necessary. The direct final rule is intended to provide 
adequate Class E airspace for aircraft operating under Instrument 
Flight Rules (IFR) and executing the NDB SIAP at Lochridge Ranch 
Airport, Athens, TX.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule published at 62 FR 28341 is 
effective 0901 UTC, September 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 
(817) 222-5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on May 23, 1997 (62 
FR 28341). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on September 11, 1997. No adverse comments were 
received, and thus this action confirms that the direct final rule will 
be effective on that date.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on August 5, 1997.
Albert L. Viselli,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.
[FR Doc. 97-22506 Filed 8-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 2012-CE-047-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 4 $ 340.00 $0 $ 340.00 7 $2,380.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,380

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Replacement

replace pushrod PN 

6015034-1

2.5 $ 212.50 $1,900 $2,112.50

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Jack AGERTON, Appellee.

No. 77-1923.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1978.

David H. Bludworth, State Atty., and Steven W. Gomberg, Asst. State Atty., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Donald P. Kohl of Kohl, Springer & Springer, Palm Springs, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Reversed on the authority of *State*v. *Kurtz,*354 So.2d 890 (Fla. 4 DCA 1978) and remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. THEODORE WOODALL, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 337 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 13th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
EXHIBIT 32.1





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





In connection with the quarterly report of Global Food Technologies, Inc. ("Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to their 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.





Dated August 5, 2011





/s/ Keith MeeksKeith Meeks, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Marshall F SparksMarshall F. Sparks, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Global Food Technologies, Inc. will be retained by Global Food Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# First American to escape al-Qaida captivity to speak at HQC’s 9/11 observance

/ Published Sept. 10, 2018
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22302]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act. Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 15, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand, Vice 
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-2171:
    1. Union Bancshares, Inc., Fargo, North Dakota; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 84.56 percent of the voting shares of 
Union State Bank of Fargo, Fargo, North Dakota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 18, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-22302 Filed 8-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-30334

Summary Calendar

 

LAWYER WINFIELD, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-3596-E

--------------------

March 18, 2003

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lawyer Winfield, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 83494, appeals

the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition

challenging the reasonable doubt jury instruction at his trial.

Winfield argues that the jury instruction for reasonable doubt

given to the jury in his criminal trial was unconstitutional under

Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990). He notes that the

instruction in his case contained all three phrases found

objectionable in Cage, i.e., “grave uncertainty,” “moral
No. 02-30334

-2-

certainty,” and “substantial doubt,” as well as the articulation

requirement condemned in Humphrey v. Cain, 120 F.3d 526, 530-31

(5th Cir. 1997), adopted in relevant part, 138 F.3d 552 (5th Cir.

1998)(en banc). 

Winfield’s reliance on Humphrey is misplaced. This court

cannot consider the “articulation requirement” to be problematic

“as the Supreme Court has never expressed disfavor with such

language.” Mulheisen v. Ieyoub, 168 F.3d 840, 844 n.2 (5th Cir.

1999). The AEDPA allows application only of Supreme Court rulings.

See id.; 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). Pursuant to § 2254(d), a federal

court must defer to a state court’s resolution of both pure

questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact unless the

state court’s determination was “contrary to” or an “unreasonable

application” of clearly established federal law as determined by

the Supreme Court. See Hill v. Johnson, 210 F.3d 481, 485 (5th

Cir. 2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). 

Although Winfield’s instruction contained the three

problematic phrases contained in the Cage instruction and in the

unconstitutional instruction in Morris v. Cain, 186 F.3d 581 (5th

Cir. 1999), it also contained the alternative definition, “abiding

conviction” of the defendant’s guilt, which was lacking in both

Cage and Morris. This alternative definition of reasonable doubt

places Winfield’s instruction within the realm of the instructions

found suitable in Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 14-16 (1994).

Accordingly, Winfield’s reasonable doubt instruction passes
No. 02-30334

-3-

constitutional muster. See id. The state court’s denial of relief

on this claim was not contrary to clearly established federal law

as determined by the Supreme Court. 2254(d)(1).

AFFIRMED.