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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2370 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2370

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation 
on the estate tax valuation of certain real property used in farming or 
                      other trades or businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2021

 Mr. Panetta (for himself and Mrs. Walorski) 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 increase the limitation 
on the estate tax valuation of certain real property used in farming or 
                      other trades or businesses.

    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 ``Preserving Family Farms Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON THE ESTATE TAX VALUATION OF CERTAIN 
              REAL PROPERTY USED IN FARMING OR OTHER TRADES OR 
              BUSINESSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 2032A(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``$750,000'' and inserting 
``$11,700,000''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 2032A(a)(3) of such Code is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``$750,000'' both places it appears and 
        inserting ``$11,700,000'',
            (2) by striking ``1998'' in the matter preceding 
        subparagraph (A) and inserting ``2021'', and
            (3) by striking ``1997'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
        ``2020''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to the estates of decedents dying after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lincoln Lee WHITE and United Service Automobile Association, Appellants, v. Marilyn MUELLER et al., Appellees.

No. 73-367.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
258 La. 567

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ivy Lee JONES v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51378.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 13, 1971.

In re: Ivy Lee Jones applying for writ of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Daniel P. Kimball, Judge of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Iberville, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 8th day of October, 1971, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### Donald Melvin LYNN, Appellant, v. Ruth R. LYNN, Appellee.

No. II-46.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 24, 1978.

Theodore J. Troxel, of Kinsey & Troxel, Pensacola, for appellant.

Nancy T. Gilliam, Pensacola, for appellee.

*909PER CURIAM.

The trial court in a dissolution judgment ordered husband/appellant to pay child support to a child born during the marriage who both parties admitted was not biologically appellant’s child. We reverse. There is no legal duty to provide support for a child who is not a party’s natural or adopted child and for whose care the party has not contracted. *Taylor v. Taylor,*279 So.2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); *Bostwick v. Bostwick,*346 So.2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

REVERSED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 10-K of Golub Capital BDC, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Registrant”) for the annual period ended September 30, 2020 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ross A. Teune, as Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge 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 Registrant.


/s/ Ross A. TeuneName: Ross A. TeuneTitle:  Chief Financial Officer


Date:   November 30, 2020
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 1385

_____________________________
I SABEL D EL P INO A LLEN , Appellant,

v.

F LORIDA S UPREME C OURT C LERK J OHN T OMASINO , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. John C. Cooper , Judge

.

June 10, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , B ILBREY , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Isabel Del Pino Allen
, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Charles Joseph F. Schreiber Jr.
, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Treasury approves Texas’ plan to invest $22.8 million of CPF funding in 

broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality internet to 

locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Texas

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Program Summary: $22.8 million for Broadband Infrastructure (5% of CPF allocation)

 Program Description: The Texas Rural Hospital Broadband Program is a grant program designed to 

build fiber to selected facilities, provide devices such as computers and workstations on wheels, 

install public Wi-Fi, and upgrade facilities to expand access to telehealth services in rural areas, 

promote educational opportunities among staff and patients, and increase access to workforce 

training.

‒ This program is designed to provide internet service with speeds of 100/100 Mbps upon project 

completion.

‒ Internet service providers utilizing investments funded by CPF will be required to participate in 

the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy for low-income 

families. 

 Key State Contact: The Texas State Office of Rural Health (SORH)

Texas Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information
Exhibit 32.1





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 CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles J. Ponicki as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Date: March 25, 2011
By:
/s/ Charles J. PonickiCharles J. PonickiPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### ETHYL CORPORATION v. COLLECTOR OF REVENUE.

No. 61168.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1978.

In re: Ethyl Corp. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 351 So.2d 1290.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, J., dissents.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00904**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 00904\00904_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 00904\00904_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 00904\00904_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 00904\00904_Part A.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00904\00904_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00904\00904_Part B.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00904\00904_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00904\00904_Part C.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00904\00904_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00904\00904_Part D.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00904\00904_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00904\00904_Part H.pdf Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00904\00904_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00904\00904_Part Ifinal-revised.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 00904\Certification Statement_00904.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 00904\Supporting Documentation\00904_C2-31 & C3-36 block diagrams.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00904\Supporting Documentation\00904_WB-1 block diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 00904\Supporting Documentation\00904_WWT-1 & Pond-1 block diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 00904\Supporting Documentation\MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Document

Exhibit 10(iii)A(14)





FIRST AMENDMENT  
TO THE
ACUITY BRANDS, INC. 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL DEFERRED SAVINGS PLAN


    This First Amendment to the Acuity Brands, Inc. 2005 Supplemental Deferred Savings Plan, as amended and restated effective as of June 28, 2019 (the "Plan"), is adopted by Acuity Brands, Inc. (the "Company") this 25th day of October, 2021, as follows:
WHEREAS, the Company has the power pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Plan to amend the Plan at any time; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to eliminate Company 3% credits to a Participant's Supplemental Subaccount for Plan Years beginning on and after January 1, 2022.  
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective for Plan Years beginning on and after January 1, 2022, as follows:
1.
Plan Section 4.1(b) "Supplemental Subaccount" is hereby amended, as follows:
The third sentence that reads: "Thereafter, unless the Board otherwise determines, as of the end of each Plan Year (or as of such other date as the Board may determine), there shall be credited to the Supplemental Subaccount of each Eligible Executive who is employed on the last day of the Plan Year and who has a Year of Service for such Plan Year an amount equal to three percent (3%) of the Eligible Executive’s Compensation for such Plan Year." is hereby deleted in its entirety.  
2.
Except as amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed this 25th day of October, 2021.


 						
	ACUITY BRANDS, INC.
	By:	/s/ NEIL M. ASHE
		NEIL M. ASHE
		Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer


1
#### Patricia A. MCCOLM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-16211.

D.C. No. CV-99-01613-MMC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Patricia McColm appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, her action alleging that a vexatious litigant order entered against her by a California court is unconstitutional and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, *Sommatino v. United States,*255 F.3d 704, 707 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for entry of dismissal without prejudice.

Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review final state court judgments even when the challenge to the state court decision involves federal constitutional issues. *See Branson v. Nott,*62 F.3d 287, 291 (9th Cir.1995). District courts may, however, review a general constitutional challenge to an ongoing practice that does not require review of a final state court decision in a particular case. *See id.*at 292. McColm’s claims are not general constitutional challenges to alleged ongoing practices; rather they are impermissible challenges to state court rulings. *See id.*at 291-92. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of McColm’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper.

The district court properly denied leave to amend because “if jurisdiction is lacking at the outset, the district court has ‘no power to do anything, other than to dismiss the action.’ ” *Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization,*858 F.2d 1376, 1380-81 (9th Cir.1988) (citation omitted).

The district court, however, erred in dismissing McColm’s action with prejudice. *See Frigard v. United States,*862 F.2d 201, 204 (9th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice so that the plaintiff may reassert his or her claim *870in a competent court). Accordingly, we vacate the dismissal with prejudice and remand for entry of dismissal without prejudice.

The district court properly denied McColm’s Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) motion. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, 5 F.3d*1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  Certification Pursuant To Section 906 Of The
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Datascope Corp.
(the "Company") for the Quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         o     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
               13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

         o     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
               all material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.


November 10, 2003


                              /s/ Lawrence Saper
                              -------------------
                              Lawrence Saper
                              Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




                              /s/ Murray Pitkowsky
                              -------------------
                              Murray Pitkowsky
                              Senior V.P., Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### Jack CARMEL, Petitioner, v. Frances CARMEL, Respondent.

No. 44381.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 11, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 282 So.2d 9, 282 So. 2d 6.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
#### MARLIN REALTY CO., Appellant, v. GILL CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-20.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 19, 1973.

C. Shelby Dale, of Dale & Stevens, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Richard W. Riddle, of Coleman, Leonard, Morrison & Riddle, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the *167basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., MAGER, J., and LESTER, M. IGNATIUS, Associate Judge, concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 264 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1101 Charlotte Street in Georgetown, South Carolina, as the ‘‘Joseph 

Hayne Rainey Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2021 

Mr. RICE of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. CLYBURN, Ms. MACE, Mr. 

TIMMONS, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. NORMAN, and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1101 Charlotte Street in Georgetown, South 

Carolina, as the ‘‘Joseph Hayne Rainey Memorial Post 

Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JOSEPH HAYNE RAINEY MEMORIAL POST OF4 FICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1101 Charlotte Street in George7 town, South Carolina, shall be known and designated as 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 264 IH

1 the ‘‘Joseph Hayne Rainey Memorial Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Joseph Hayne Rainey 

7 Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000025212
<NAME> COURIER CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                              32
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,036<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,219
<INVENTORY>                                     10,215
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,591
<PP&E>                                         101,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                  66,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,563
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,750
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,743<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,424
<SALES>                                         74,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                74,442
<CGS>                                           56,426
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,426
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,306
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    95
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 720
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,895
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,327
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,568
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .84<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80<F3>
        
<FN>
<F1>RECEIVABLES ARE NET OF ALLOWANCES FOR UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS.
<F2>OTHER SE INCLUDES TREASURY STOCK.
<F3>PER SHARE AMOUNTS REFLECT A THREE-FOR-TWO STOCK SPLIT EFFECTED IN THE FORM
    OF A 50% STOCK DIVIDEND TO BE DISTRIBUTED ON JUNE 1, 1998 TO STOCKHOLDERS OF
    RECORD ON MAY 15, 1998.
</FN>

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 252 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 252

 To require the publication of the name of any person pardoned by the 
                   President, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2021

Mr. Krishnamoorthi introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the publication of the name of any person pardoned by the 
                   President, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Presidential Pardon Transparency Act 
of 2021''.

SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF PARDONS.

    Not later than 3 days after the date on which the President grants 
any reprieve or pardon for an offence against the United States, the 
Attorney General shall publish in the Federal Register and on the 
official website of the President the following:
            (1) The name of the person.
            (2) The date on which the reprieve or pardon was issued.
            (3) The full text of the reprieve or pardon.
                                 <all>
```
#### Maxine KAUTZMAN, Appellant, v. Louis G. HATTEN, Executor of the Estate of Tillie H. Fiore, Appellee.

No. 69-970.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 12, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 3, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.