alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (1) | the      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended      October 3, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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:      November 12, 2008 | By:    |  /s/Donald G.      DeBuck                                               |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   |      Donald      G. DeBuck                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|                          |   |      Vice      President and Chief FinancialOfficer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 03 69 IN THE MATTER OF: J.S., Respondent and Appellant. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 9, 2024 within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 3 2024

01/03/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0369
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_______ _______ __________ No. ACM S32472

_______ _______ __________ UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Richard J. NOEL , Jr. Senior Airman (E

- 4 ) , U .S. Air Force, Appellant

_______ _______ __________ Appeal from the United S tates Air Force Trial Judiciary D ecided 2 3 M arch 2018

_______ _______ __________ Military Judge: Brendon K. Tukey

. Approved sentence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 90 days , reduction to E

- 1, and a reprimand. Sentence adjudged 1 1 May 201 7 by SP CM convened at Davis

- Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona

. For Appellant: Captain Dustin J. Weisman , USAF

. For Appellee: Major Mary Ellen Payne, USAF

. Before JOHNSON, MINK, and DENNIS, Appellate Military Judges

.

_______ _______ __________ This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

_______ _______ __________

PE R CURIAM : The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant ’ s substantial rights occurred. Arti cles 59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice , 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c).United States v. Noel , No. ACM S32472

2 Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRME D

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 8.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant

Wholly owned subsidiaries



|                                                 |  |                                   
|------------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------
|Name of entity                                   |  | Place of incorporation            
|                                                 | 
|1. Surplus International Investments Limited     |  | Hong Kong                         
|                                                 | 
|2. Liaoning Nuokang Bio-Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. |  | Peoples Republic of China (PRC)
|                                                 | 
|3. Shenyang Shouzheng Bio-Technology Co., Ltd.   |  | PRC                               
|                                                 | 
|4. Penglai Nuokang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.      |  | PRC                               

Affiliated Entity Consolidated in the
Registrants Financial Statement



|                                        |  |                       
|--------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name of entity                          |  | Place of incorporation
|                                        | 
|1. Liaoning Nuokang Medicines Co., Ltd. |  | PRC                   
|                                        | 
|2. Venomics Hong Kong Limited           |  | Hong Kong
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 167 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 167

To prohibit the transfer of a firearm at a gun show by a person who is 
               not a federally licensed firearms dealer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2021

Mr. Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the transfer of a firearm at a gun show by a person who is 
               not a federally licensed firearms dealer.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF A FIREARM AT A GUN SHOW BY A 
              PERSON WHO IS NOT A FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER.

    (a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(aa)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for a person to transfer a 
firearm at a gun show, unless the person is a licensed dealer.
    ``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a transfer to a person 
licensed under this chapter.
    ``(2) In paragraph (1), the term `gun show'--
            ``(A) means an event or function--
                    ``(i) held for the purpose of facilitating the 
                commercial sale, transfer, or exchange of firearms; and
                    ``(ii) at which a firearm is displayed, exhibited, 
                offered for sale, transfer, or exchange, or is sold, 
                transferred, or exchanged; and
            ``(B) includes the entire premises, including parking 
        areas, used to facilitate the sale, transfer, or exchange of 
        firearms at the event or function.''.
    (b) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) shall be fined an 
amount equal to $10,000 multiplied by the number of firearms involved 
in the violation, imprisoned not less than 1 year and not more than 2 
years, or both.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Fred L. YOUNG and Pearline Young, his wife, Appellants, v. H. G. ARENSON and Sara Z. Arenson, his wife, and Southern Title Research Co., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-122.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 20, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Automotive Industries Pension Plan

Checklist Item #40

Does the application include this checklist, completed and placed on top of the application?

See section 7.10.

Yes. The required checklist is attached as Document No. 40.1.
#### Arthur WINSTEAD, State Commissioner of Public Welfare, et al., v. Ophelia KIRKWOOD.

No. 46131.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 8, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 19, 1971.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by P. Roger Googe, Jr., Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellants.

Michael B. Tnster, Washington, D. C, John Maxey, Jackson, for appellee.

BRADY, Justice:

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, wherein a judgment was rendered reversing the Department of Public Welfare’s ruling that the appellee should be denied aid as a permanently and totally disabled person. From that judgment this appeal is taken.

The issue here is extremely limited and does not involve the merits of appellee’s claim of total and permanent disability. The issue is presented by appellant’s motion to quash, vacate and dismiss the writ of certiorari filed by the appellee. The learned circuit judge overruled the motion and this is urged as error by the appellant.

The legislature of this state has clearly prescribed the legal redress of those concerned with, or those who participate in, the State Welfare Program. Section 7286 of Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (1952) provides as follows:

> No suit shall be maintained in any court for the purpose of compelling an award of assistance or to enforce payment of any award of assistance made under the provisions of this act. Awards *558made hereunder shall in no case create any vested or other rights for assistance in the recipients.

This language is unambiguous and clearly prohibits that which the appellee seeks to do. This Court must recognize and follow the legislative prohibition. We are not unmindful of the interpretations placed by the Federal Judiciary upon the Federal Social Security Act as it relates to the operation of the Department of- Public Welfare of the various states. If and when the federal courts consider the statutes of this state relating to this State’s Department of Public Welfare we will give those determinations proper consideration.

In this state currently public welfare is considered an act of charity on the part of the state in protection of its blind, its maimed and its aged. Appellant’s motion to quash and dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari should have been sustained. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and this cause is dismissed.

Reversed and cause dismissed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and RODGERS, PATTERSON and SMITH, JJ., concur.
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 Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 results of operation of the Company.





Date: March 24, 2011





/s/ Eric WatsonName:
Eric WatsonTitle:
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Secretary and

Treasurer (Principal Executive and Principal Financialand Accounting Officer)
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSRS

 

Investment Company Act file number  811-4049

 

DWS Income Trust

 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

 (Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

 

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (212) 454-7190

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

 

| Date of fiscal year end: | 09/30 |
|--------------------------|-------|

 

| Date of reporting period: | 3/31/09 |
|---------------------------|---------|

 

 

**ITEM 1.**           **REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS**

 

----
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 202 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 

deduction for State and local taxes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2021 

Mr. GARCIA of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the limitation on deduction for State and local taxes, 

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 ‘‘SALT Fairness Act 

5 of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR STATE 

7 AND LOCAL, ETC. TAXES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 164(b) is amended by 

9 striking paragraph (6). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 202 IH

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

2 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in section 

3 11042 of Public Law 115–97. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30259]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Docket No. 9260]


Jenny Craig, Inc.; Jenny Craig International, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Reopening of public comment period for proposed consent 
agreement.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides interested members of the public an 
additional fifteen days to submit written comments regarding the 
proposed consent agreement with Jenny Craig, Inc., and Jenny Craig 
International, Inc.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeffrey Klurfeld or Matthew D. Gold, Federal Trade Commission, San 
Francisco Regional Office, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San Francisco, 
CA 94103, (415) 356-5270.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 5, 1997, the Federal Trade 
Commission (``Commission'') published a proposed consent agreement (62 
FR 30857) and solicited comments from interested members of the public. 
The 60-day public comment period expired on August 4, 1997.
    In light of the recent acceptance for public comment of a proposed 
consent agreement with Weight Watchers International, Inc. (62 FR 
52340), the Commission has now decided to reopen the public comment 
period for fifteen days. The Commission will, after the close of the 
new public comment period, give consideration to all comments already 
received during or after the original comment period as well as all 
comments received during the new public comment period. Accordingly, 
there is no need to re-submit copies of any comments previously 
submitted to the Commission on this matter.

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30259 Filed 11-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
#### McNAMARA PONTIAC, INC., Appellants, v. Michael D. JONES et al., Appellees.

Nos. 73-456, 73-457.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1974.

Bailey M. Welden, St. Petersburg, for appellants.

William E. Kreuter and John V. A. Holmes of Lovett Kreuter & Holmes, Orlando, for appellee Jones.

PER CURIAM.

We consolidate for purpose of review and disposition interlocutory appeal Case No. 73-456 with the plenary appeal Case No. 73-457. The contention raised by the appeal is whether the trial court abused its *68discretion in denying- a motion to vacate and set aside entry of default judgment, and subsequently the entry of a final judgment.

Upon a review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the briefs of the parties, we are of the opinion there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court in declining to vacate the final judgment and set aside the default judgment so as to permit determination of the controversy on the merits.

Accordingly, the final judgment entered in Case No. 73-457 is reversed, and the default judgment entered in Case No. 73-456 is vacated and set aside and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

OWEN, C. J., CROSS, J., and LEE, J. CAIL, Associate Judge, concur.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 40078 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
LUCIANO FLORES

- JIMENEZ, also known as Roberto Gonzalez

- Gonzalez , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:17

- CR

- 1205

- 1

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luciano Flores

Jimenez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Flores

- Jimenez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 25, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-40078 Document: 00514697542 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2018No. 18

- 40078

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accor dingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-40078 Document: 00514697542 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2018
Exhibit 32.3





Certification of Chief Executive Officer 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 on Form 10-K of R1 RCM Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Joseph Flanagan, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.




Date: May 1, 2017


/s/ Joseph Flanagan


Joseph Flanagan


President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Arthur STEVENSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1016.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 14, 1973.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Bruce J. Daniels and Kenneth J. Scherer, Asst. Public Defenders, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Donald K. Rudser and George R. Georgieff, Asst. At-tys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the doctrine of non-necessity of retreat. It is the state’s position that this doctrine does not apply to a situation where both parties are on the premises in question with equal authority and control. The identical contention of the state was considered and rejected in Watkins v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 312, wherein this court held that refusal to charge the jury, when properly requested, was prejudicial error.1 Accordingly, the judgment and sentence imposed is reversed with directions to grant defendant a new trial.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.

1

. Although defense counsel did not object to the trial court’s failure to give the instruction, defense counsel did request such an instruction at the charge conference held in the judge’s chambers. F.S. Sec. 918.10(4), F.S.A., relating to the necessity of objecting to the giving or failure to give an instruction was repealed in 1970 and was not in effect at the time of defendant’s trial. Such provision however was re-adopted as Rule 3.390, F.R.O.P., 33 F.S.A.; but did not become effective until February 1, 1973.
George Heinen Supervisor, Rule Development (559)230-58113/:d4 HEALTHY AIR 1IViNG www ha1thy

i•r;‘ —_z
J Fw: Rule 4103 (Open Burning) and Final Report Approval Andrew Steckel
toJoanne Wells, Charlotte Withey, Jeanhee Hong06/15/2011 03:14 PM Foiwarded
by Andrew Steckel/R9/USEPNUS

on06/15/201

1 03:14 PM From: “George Heinên” <george.heinenvalIeyair.org> To: Andrew Steckel/R9/USEPAIUS@EPA Cc: “Errol Villegas” <errolvillegasvalleyairorg>, “Samir Sheikh” <Samir.Sheikh©valleyair.org>, “Koshoua Thao” <koshoua.thaovalleyair.org> Date: 06/15/2011 03:08PM Subject: Rule 4103 (Open Burning) and Final Report Approval Andy, As wediscussed today,
it would be acceptable
if EPA approved Table 9-1-Crop Categories and Recommendations

in Chapter

9 ofthe District’s “Final StaffReport and Recommendations

on Agricultural Burning”, dated May 20, 2010 (revised July 21, 2010) rather than approving the reportin its entirety. In conjunction with Rule 4103 (Open Burning), the recommendations found in Table

9 provide the basis for the District’s Open Burning Program. It is important
to remember that all open burning
is managed by the District’s Smoke Management System and that no burning
is allowed on days where
it could causeorcontribute
toanexceedance
of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Hope this answers your questions. Thank youand yourstaff for yourefforts towork with usin this project. Make: ‘ne change far clean air!