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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3365 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that low alcohol 

by volume kombucha is exempt from any excise taxes and any regulations 

under chapter 53 of such Code which are imposed on alcoholic beverages. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2023 

Mr. WYDEN 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 ensure 

that low alcohol by volume kombucha is exempt from 

any excise taxes and any regulations under chapter 53 

of such Code which are imposed on alcoholic beverages. 

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 ‘‘Keeping Our Manufac5 turers from Being Unfairly taxed while Championing 

6 Health Act’’ or ‘‘KOMBUCHA’’. 

2 

•S 3365 IS

1 SEC. 2. TAX-FREE PRODUCTION OF LOW ALCOHOL BY VOL2 UME KOMBUCHA. 

3 (a) EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON WINE.—Section 

4 5042(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(4) LOW ALCOHOL BY VOLUME KOMBUCHA.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to regulations 

8 prescribed by the Secretary, low alcohol by vol9 ume kombucha shall not be subject to— 

10 ‘‘(i) tax as wine, or 

11 ‘‘(ii) the provisions of subchapter F. 

12 ‘‘(B) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this 

13 chapter, the term ‘low alcohol by volume 

14 kombucha’ means a beverage which— 

15 ‘‘(i) is fermented solely by a symbiotic 

16 culture of bacteria and yeast, 

17 ‘‘(ii) contains not more than 1.25 per18 cent of alcohol by volume, 

19 ‘‘(iii) is sold or offered for sale as 

20 kombucha, and 

21 ‘‘(iv) is derived from— 

22 ‘‘(I) fermentable sugars, includ23 ing sugar, malt or malt substitute, 

24 honey, and fruit juice, and 

25 ‘‘(II) plant materials, including 

26 tea and coffee.’’. 

3 

•S 3365 IS

1 (b) EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON BEER.—Section 5053 

2 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

3 (1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection 

4 (j), and 

5 (2) by inserting after subsection (h) the fol6 lowing new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(i) PRODUCTION OF LOW ALCOHOL BY VOLUME

8 KOMBUCHA.—Subject to regulations prescribed by the 

9 Secretary, low alcohol by volume kombucha (as defined in 

10 section 5042(a)(4)(B)) shall not be subject to— 

11 ‘‘(1) tax as beer, or 

12 ‘‘(2) the provisions of subchapter G.’’. 

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

14 this section shall apply to calendar quarters beginning 

15 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
<PAGE>
<PAGE>          102
                             CHATWINS GROUP, INC.
                      COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
            (In thousands, except share and per share information)

                                             YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                  -------------------------------------------
                                     1993     1994     1995     1996     1997
                                  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
     EARNINGS:
Income before equity loss from
  affiliate, extraordinary items 
  and cumulative effect of change 
  in accounting principle         $   662  $ 1,255  $ 4,425  $    17  $ 2,321
Dividends paid or accreted to 
  preferred stock                    (575)    (450)    (456)    (456)    (456)
                                  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
     Earnings applicable to 
       common stock                    87      805    3,969     (439)   1,865

Equity loss from continuing
  operations of affiliate          (1,589)     (90)    (132)    (549)    (224)
Equity income from discontinued 
  operations of affiliate               -        -        -       93      162
Extraordinary items                (1,171)    (201)       -        -        -
Cumulative effect of change in
  accounting principle               (200)       -        -        -        -
                                  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
     Net earnings applicable
       to common stock            $(2,873) $   514  $ 3,837  $  (895) $ 1,803
                                  =======  =======  =======  =======  =======

     COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING:
Average equivalent outstanding    304,655  293,242  292,887  292,887  292,887
                                  =======  =======  =======  =======  =======

     EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE:
Income before equity loss from
  affiliate, extraordinary items
  and cumulative effect of change 
  in accounting principle         $  0.29  $  2.74  $ 13.55  $ (1.49) $  6.37
Continuing operations of 
  affiliate                         (5.21)   (0.31)   (0.45)   (1.87)   (1.77)
Discontinued operations of 
  affiliate                             -        -        -     0.31     1.56
Extraordinary items                 (3.84)   (0.68)       -        -
Cumulative effect                   (0.66)       -        -        -
                                  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
     EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE    $ (9.42) $  1.75  $ 13.10  $ (3.05) $  6.16
                                  =======  =======  =======  =======  =======
#### George BENHAM, d/b/a “Four Keys” v. Frank GUILBEAUX.

No. 62131.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1978.

In re: Frank Guilbeaux, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Calcasieu. 356 So.2d 1062. >

Denied.
Use Safety Data

A RO D SAFE

L

TY

A

PL

C

A

O

N

L

S

A ST RT HERE!

Café

Store

Local Road 

Safety Plans:

Your Map to Safer Roadways

No matter what your resources, a Local 

Road Safety Plan will guide you to 

data-driven solutions and safer roads.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/local_road/

Identify Stakeholders

In 2017, over 

50% of fatalities 

occurred on rural 

roads, but just 19% 

of Americans live 

in rural areas.

Choose Proven Solutions

Chevron signs 

reduce nighttime 

crashes by 25%.

Implement Solutions

More than 

75% of all roads 

are maintained 

by local 

agencies.

Help Get People Home Safely
#### LUDLUM ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellants, v. V L INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known as Florida Lamp, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-984.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1971.

Daniel I. Wincor, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Kommel, Rogers, Lorber & Shenkman, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Ex parte Ball, 1934, 2 Cal.App.2d 578, 38 P.2d 411; Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Smith, 1961, 29 Ill. App.2d 35, 172 N.E.2d 429; 72 C.J.S. Process § 34c.
# Number of Fatalities

Number of Fatalities

Number of Fatalities

# Fatality Rate

Fatality Rate  (per 100 MVMT) 

Number of Fatalities

# Number of Serious Injuries

Number of Serious Injuries

Number of Fatalities

# Serious Injury Rate

Serious Injury Rate (per 100 MVMT)

Number of Fatalities

# Number of Non-Motorized K+A

Number of Non-Motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries

Number of Fatalities
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-2592NE

_____________ Bernard Niewohner, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * First American Title Insurance * [UNPUBLISHED] Company, * * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: February 24, 1999

Filed: March 9, 1999

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. BernardNiewohner appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in this diversity-based title insurance case. We review a grant of summary judgment under a well-established standard. Because this is a diversity action, we review de novo questions of state law. Having considered the record and the parties' submissions, we are satisfied the district court correctly applied the law and the record supports the district court's ruling. We also conclude a comprehensive opinion in this diversity case would lack precedential value. We thus affirm on the basis of the district court's ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52361-52362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26684]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems; Notice of Sunshine Act Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

NAME: Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems (#1189).

DATE AND TIME: October 29-30, 1997; 8:30 am-5:00 pm.


[[Page 52362]]


PLACE: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 580, 
Arlington, VA 22230.

TYPE OF MEETING: Closed.

CONTACT PERSON: Fred G. Heineken, Program Director, Biotechnology 
Engineering, Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Systems, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1318.

PURPOSE OF MEETING: To provide advice and recommendations concerning 
proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.

AGENDA: To review and evaluate CAREER proposals as part of the 
selection process for awards.

REASON FOR CLOSING: The proposals being reviewed include information of 
a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; 
financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning 
individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt 
under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine 
Act.

    Dated: October 3, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-26684 Filed 10-3-97; 2:49 pm]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### John J. LEONE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-194.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 25, 1970.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

ORDER

PIERCE, Judge.

Whereas, appellant John J. Leone was, on October 31, 1966, informed against in the Lee County Circuit Court, for escape from lawful custody while serving a sentence pursuant to a previous conviction for a criminal offense, to which information the said Leone in open Court on February 6, 1967, attended by his appointed counsel, the Assistant Public Defender of said Court, waived arraignment and entered a plea of guilty to said offense of escape so charged, and was thereupon sentenced to a term of one year imprisonment in the State Prison, and

Whereas, on March 18, 1969, the said Leone filed in the trial Court his motion to vacate and set aside said sentence on the sole ground that the statute making escape from lawful custody a criminal offense, F.S. § 944.40, F.S.A., was unconstitutional, and

Whereas, on March 20, 1969, said motion to vacate aforesaid was denied by the trial Court, pursuant to which said Leone, on April 2, 1969, filed his notice of appeal to this Court from said order, and

*405Whereas, this is Leone’s first appeal in said conviction case, and

Whereas, the local Public Defender, duly appointed by the trial Court to represent Leone on this appeal, has filed brief in this Court wherein he disagrees with Leone as to the validity of said statute and states that “there is nothing in the record which might arguably support the appeal, and * * * therefore respectfully submits that this is a frivolous appeal and asks to withdraw as Attorney of Record in this matter”, citing Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, and

Whereas, *Anders*prescribes a suggested procedural formula in such situation, which we herewith endeavor to follow in principle;

Now therefore, it is ordered that said Public Defender furnish to appellant Leone at his present place of imprisonment, by certified, return-receipt mail, a copy of his said brief, and thereupon file in this Court a certificate of service of said copy upon Leone and Leone’s acceptance thereof, showing the date of such delivery to Leone, and

It is further ordered that Leone will have thirty days after the date of his receipt of said copy of brief, as shown on the return-receipt aforesaid, within which to file in this Court his own brief in his behalf raising any points that he chooses, upon which filing this Court will thereupon determine whether this appeal is wholly frivolous or contains any colorably arguable points, and make such order as may be then appropriate; and

It is further ordered' that the Public Defender’s aforesaid motion to withdraw as counsel be held in abeyance pending further proceedings as stated.

It is so ordered.

HOBSON, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
#### Mary E. LLOYD, a Free Dealer, Appellant, v. COMMERCIAL BANK OF DADE CITY, a Florida Banking Corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Dec. 17, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Frances C. HART, Appellant, v. Kenneth H. HART and his wife, Sara M. Hart, Appellees.

No. L-67.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Aug. 5, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 20, 1969.

Greene, Ayres, Swigert, Cluster & Tucker, Ocala, for appellant.

Green, Simmons & Green, Ocala, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in favor of appel-lees. The principal question preserved on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

Appellant mother brought this action seeking to set aside a deed given by her to appellee son and his wife. The prayer of her complaint is grounded upon the contention that the deed is a forgery, but, if genuine, it was procured by undue influence arising out of a fiduciary relationship between the parties. After trial the court entered its judgment sustaining the validity of the deed upon the finding that it was not a forgery but the voluntary act of appellant given under circumstances free from undue influence.

In our review of the issues presented for decision, we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that the judgment of a trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. The record reveals that although the testimony is conflicting, there is substantial evidence to support the findings made and conclusions reached by the trial court.1 It iá not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court committed *455error or the evidence demonstrates that the conclusions reached are erroneous.2 The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

1

. Rowland v. McCall (Fla.App.1960), 118 So.2d 846; Marquette v. Hathaway (Fla.1954), 76 So.2d 648.

2

. Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson (Fla.App.1965), 177 So.2d 50; Stoller v. Jaffe (Fla.App.1961), 125 So. 2d 310.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3267 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3267

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 410 Dakota Avenue South in Huron, South Dakota, as the ``First 
        Lieutenant Thomas Michael Martin Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FIRST LIEUTENANT THOMAS MICHAEL MARTIN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 410 Dakota Avenue South in Huron, South Dakota, shall be 
known and designated as the ``First Lieutenant Thomas Michael Martin 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``First 
Lieutenant Thomas Michael Martin Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate April 23, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3267

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 410 Dakota Avenue South in Huron, South Dakota, as the ``First 
        Lieutenant Thomas Michael Martin Post Office Building''.
```
#### William James WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

July 31, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alexis Korybut, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:  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/ Alexis Korybut  Alexis Korybut Chief Executive Officer August 22, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 334 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 334

  To modify the restriction in section 3326 of title 5, United States 
   Code, relating to the appointment of retired members of the Armed 
Forces to positions in the Department of Defense to apply to positions 
                      at or above the GS-14 level.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 9, 2023

Mr. Lankford (for himself, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Lee, Mr. Romney, Mr. Braun, 
Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Ossoff, and Mr. Warnock) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To modify the restriction in section 3326 of title 5, United States 
   Code, relating to the appointment of retired members of the Armed 
Forces to positions in the Department of Defense to apply to positions 
                      at or above the GS-14 level.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Retain Skilled Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON APPOINTMENT OF RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
              FORCES TO CERTAIN POSITIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

    (a) In General.--Section 3326 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``certain'' before 
        ``positions''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``appointed'' and all that follows 
                through ``Defense'' and inserting ``appointed to a 
                position in the excepted or competitive service 
                classified at or above GS-14 of the General Schedule 
                (or equivalent) in or under the Department of 
                Defense''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``for the 
                purpose'' and all that follows through ``Management''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
subchapter I of chapter 33 of such title is amended in the item 
relating to section 3326 by inserting ``certain'' before ``positions''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Carlos FOWLER v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50356.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 1, 1978.

David R. Sparks, Tupelo, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Wayne Snuggs, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County; Neal Biggers, Judge.

Before SMITH, P. J., and ROBERTSON and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.1



Cookson Group plc and Subsidiaries

Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C Section 1350)



In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Cookson Group plc for the period ended 31 December 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I, Stephen L Howard, Group Chief Executive of Cookson Group plc 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 annual 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
annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Cookson Group plc.



Date: 24 May 2004

/s/    STEPHEN L HOWARDStephen L Howard Group Chief Executive (Chief Executive Officer)
#### Herman R. SLAKMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 38439.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 8, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1970.

Chester Bedell and Robert P. Smith, Jr., Jacksonville, for petitioner.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of certiorari having heretofore issued, argument having been heard, and the court having examined the record and briefs, it appears that the writ was improvidently issued. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari heretofore issued in this cause is discharged.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., ROBERTS, THORNAL, and CARLTON, JJ., and CREWS, Circuit Judge, concur.