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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2350 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal chapter 35 (relating 

to taxes on wagering). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2021 

Ms. TITUS (for herself, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Mr. AMODEI, and Mr. 

HORSFORD) 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 

chapter 35 (relating to taxes on wagering). 

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 ‘‘Discriminatory Gam5 ing Tax Repeal Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 35 of subtitle D of the 

8 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is repealed. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2350 IH

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

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2020. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Ronald MARSHALL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-57.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 11, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; B. C. Muszynski, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND> This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the unaudited consolidated statements of income and consolidated balance
sheets and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such unaudited
consolidated financial statements
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<PERIOD-START>                FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                            275,018
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                   2,571,131
<ALLOWANCES>                       66,558
<INVENTORY>                    46,057,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               51,879,914
<PP&E>                         27,818,840
<DEPRECIATION>                 15,500,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 69,318,175
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          42,577,594
<BONDS>                         4,750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0 
<COMMON>                        1,523,796
<OTHER-SE>                     12,220,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   69,318,175
<SALES>                        44,096,169
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               44,238,258
<CGS>                          32,882,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               14,979,775  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                579,474
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (4,003,871)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (4,003,871)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (2.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (2.65) 


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         309,996
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,633,912
<ALLOWANCES>                                   689,811
<INVENTORY>                                 11,209,981
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,846,989
<PP&E>                                       5,687,185
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,461,257
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,883,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,093,025
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,245,823
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,883,799
<SALES>                                     18,746,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,746,232
<CGS>                                       12,721,761
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               20,906,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,160,746)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (564,327)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,596,419)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,596,419)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.02)


</TABLE>
#### John B. CARLSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1085.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 7, 1973.

*197Robert T. Adams, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of possession of a stolen vehicle, “ . . . [T]o-wit: a motorcycle, a 1972 Harley-Davidson, 1200 CC Superglide, Serial No. 2C16996H2, the property of Dale Hendrix . . . ” in violation of Section 814.03(2), F.S.1971, F.S.A. We conclude that ¡reversible error has not been shown and therefore affirm the judgment and sentence appealed.

One point merits a brief comment. Although the State sufficiently proved that the appellant was in possession of a stolen 1972 Harley-Davidson 1200 CC Superglide motorcycle, the property of Dale Hendrix, the State failed to introduce any competent' evidence to show that the serial number of the motorcycle was that alleged in the information. The serial number of the motorcycle was merely part of the description and was not a material allegation which necessarily had to be proved.

Affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
#### Alice PITTMAN, Appellant, v. Cornelius SMITH, Appellee.

No. 70-198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 29, 1971.

John Carruthers, II, Law Offices of Charles C. Papy, Jr., Coral Gables, for appellant.

Robert C. Lane, Jr., of Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, and Fuller & Brumer, Miami, for appellee.

MAGER, Judge.

Defendant appeals from an order of the trial judge granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant based upon the judge’s finding that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.

Contentions similar to those raised by the defendant in this appeal were considered in Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669. There the Supreme Court of Florida held that it was the duty of the trial judge to grant a new trial if he concludes that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence; and he should always do so if the jury has been deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence or it has been influenced by considerations outside the record. The trial judge by virtue of his close contact with the trial stands in a unique position in that he has the opportunity to better understand the ultimate decision of the jurors and is in a much better position than an appellate court to pass upon the ultimate correctness of the jury’s verdict.

Therefore, the trial court has a very broad and liberal discretion in ruling on a motion for a new trial and such determination will not be disturbed except on a clear showing of abuse. The burden rests upon the appellant to make such error clearly appear. In the case sub judice the defendant has failed to sustain this burden.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and OWEN, J., concur.
|    |                                                                                                                                        |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A of Molycorp, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |

|                                                                                                                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                      |  |
| /s/ MICHAEL F. DOOLAN                                                                                                                |   |
| Michael F. DoolanExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |   |
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH,

Appellant

v.

G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP,

Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1339

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. PGR2021

-

00078

.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App.

P. 42 (b).

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

June 27, 2023

Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Acting Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 27, 202 3 Case: 23-1339 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 06/27/2023
#### Edward Earl LEONARD et ux. v. Jessie MORRIS et ux., and Verna Roche Doan, et al.

No. 50158.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 16, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1978.

Stewart & Burks, Delos H. Burks, Picayune, for appellants.

Williams, Williams & Montgomery, E. Bragg Williams, III, Poplarville, for appel-lees.

Before SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ, LEE, J, and JAMES E. BOST. Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.
#### In re the GUARDIANSHIP of Frank J. AMBROSE, Incompetent. Sybil Barge AMBROSE, Appellant, v. Frank J. AMBROSE, Appellee.

No. 72-1048.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 8, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DE CEMBER 23, 2015

NO. 03

- 15

- 00112

- CR

Matthew Jarrett Lee, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE R OSE, JUSTICES PEMBER TON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and

the parties ’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment

. Because appellant is indigent

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/16/2015 11:11:22 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2597 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2597

  To designate the United States courthouse located at 1501 North 6th 
  Street in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the ``Judge Sylvia H. Rambo 
          United States Courthouse'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2021

Mr. Perry (for himself, Ms. Wild, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. 
Keller, and Mr. Reschenthaler) introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse located at 1501 North 6th 
  Street in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as the ``Judge Sylvia H. Rambo 
          United States Courthouse'', and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. JUDGE SYLVIA H. RAMBO UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The United States courthouse located at 1501 
North 6th Street in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Judge Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
reference to the ``Judge Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

AUDREY D. HARRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

C.F.S. Air Cargo; HARTFORD FIRE;

No. 96-2684

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS'

COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Benefits Review Board.

(No. 95-751)

Submitted: November 18, 1997

Decided: February 6, 1998

Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Audrey D. Harris, Petitioner Pro Se. Gerard E. W. Voyer, TAYLOR

& WALKER, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Respondents.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Audrey D. Harris, a longshoreman, injured her back,

shoulder, and neck at work. An Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")

denied benefits, and Petitioner appealed to the Benefits Review Board

(the "Board"). Because the Board failed to resolve the appeal (which

had been pending for over one year) before September 12, 1996, the

ALJ's decision was considered affirmed by the Board on that date for

purposes of obtaining judicial review. See Omnibus Appropriations

Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 101(d), 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26,

1996). In her timely petition, Petitioner argues that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's determination that she did not suffer

a disability due to her injury and thus was not entitled to disability

benefits. Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision,

we affirm.

The record discloses that Petitioner's treating doctors found no

objective evidence to verify Petitioner's contentions of prolonged

physical injury resulting from her work accident. Furthermore, two

doctors determined that Petitioner was capable of resuming her normal work activities shortly after her accident. Therefore, we find substantial evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion that Petitioner did not

suffer a disability. The record further discloses that a doctor who

treated Petitioner for over a year following her accident ascertained

no causal connection between Petitioner's work accident and her carpal tunnel syndrome. Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence

supports the ALJ's determination that Petitioner was not entitled to

compensation for medical expenses incurred to treat her carpal tunnel

syndrome.

We therefore affirm the ALJ's order and summary affirmance of

the Board denying Petitioner relief under the Longshore and Harbor

Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-950 (West 1986 &

 2
Supp. 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000861291
<NAME> SYLVAN INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                           5,567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,427
<ALLOWANCES>                                       812
<INVENTORY>                                      8,723
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,203
<PP&E>                                          70,952
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,324
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,264
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,680
<SALES>                                         81,560
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,560
<CGS>                                           47,256
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,087
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (31)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,058
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,446
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,739
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,482
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.01<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01<F1>
<FN>
<F1>(a) The Company adopted SFAS No. 128, "Earnings per Share" in 1997. "EPS
Primary" has been completed as Basic earnings per share and "EPS Diluted" has 
been completed as Diluted earnings per share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Robert J. Krist. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Datum Inc.
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)     the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
        period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
        1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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 28, 2002


                                       /s/ Robert J. Krist
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Robert J. Krist
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 09-1731

________________

NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

BRIAN STEPHEN; ELAINE K. STEPHEN

________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 3-07-cv-02070)

District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley

________________

Argued January 5, 2011

Before: AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges

and SÁNCHEZ,* District Judge

(Opinion filed July 22, 2011)

ORDER AMENDING PRECEDENTIAL OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case filed

July 22, 2011, be amended as follows:

On page 3, second full paragraph, line 1, insert a comma after “2007”.

_________________

* Honorable Juan R. Sánchez, District Court Judge, Eastern District of 

Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
2

On page 5, footnote 5, line 4, replace “fall back” with “fallback”.

On page 11, line 7, delete the comma after “categories”.

On page 13, first full paragraph, penultimate line, delete “jurisdiction over” 

and replace it with “the power to resolve”, so that the phrase reads “the Court had the 

power to resolve the ensuing controversy.”

On page 16, line 4, replace “agreed” with “contended”.

On page 16, line 10, replace “problem” with “problems”.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: September 29, 2011
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Junior COTTON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 51154.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 1971.

In re: Junior Cotton applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made does not warrant the relief sought.
TBAC RECOMMENDED US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 3rd QUARTER 2022*

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

NEW

MONEY

Net BILLS Issuance for the quarter 123.78

SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT** MONEY

COUPONS

CHANGE^

3-Year Note 7/15 43.00 -1.00

10-Year Note (r) 7/15 33.00 -1.00

30-Year Bond (r) 7/15 19.00 -1.00 64.34 30.66

10-Year TIPS 7/29 17.00 1.00 0.00 17.00

20-Year Bond (r) 8/1 14.00 -2.00

2-Year Note 8/1 45.00 -1.00

2-Year FRN 8/1 24.00 0.00

5-Year Note 8/1 46.00 -1.00

7-Year Note 8/1 38.00 -2.00 159.80 7.20

3-Year Note 8/15 42.00 -1.00

10-Year Note 8/15 35.00 -1.00

30-Year Bond 8/15 21.00 -1.00 54.09 43.91

2-Year FRN (r) 8/26 22.00 0.00 0.00 22.00

20-Year Bond 8/31 15.00 -2.00

30-Year TIPS (r) 8/31 8.00 0.00

2-Year Note 8/31 44.00 -1.00

5-Year Note 8/31 45.00 -1.00

7-Year Note 8/31 37.00 -1.00 91.86 57.14

3-Year Note 9/15 41.00 -1.00

10-Year Note (r) 9/15 32.00 -1.00

30-Year Bond (r) 9/15 18.00 -1.00 28.21 62.79

20-Year Bond 9/30 12.00 -2.00

10-Year TIPS (r) 9/30 15.00 1.00

2-Year Note 9/30 43.00 -1.00

2-Year FRN (r) 9/30 22.00 0.00

5-Year Note 9/30 44.00 -1.00

7-Year Note 9/30 36.00 -1.00 92.49 79.51

811.00 490.78 320.22

Estimates are italicized. r = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 444

* This Financing table is meant to be illustrative based on meeting discussions and does not indicate how Treasury will actually issue

debt in the future.

** Maturing amount is based on private holdings as of 8/1/2022 and subject to change based on Fed purchases.

^ Change is with respect to previous auction. For securities with reopenings, change from new cusip to new cusip, 1st reopening

 to 1st reopening, and etc.