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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7436 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand tax benefits related 

to dependent care assistance programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 30, 2020 

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 expand 

tax benefits related to dependent care assistance programs. 

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 ‘‘Working Families 

5 Childcare Access (WFCA) Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF BENEFITS FOR DEPENDENT CARE 

7 ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. 

8 (a) EXPANSION OF ANNUAL MAXIMUM.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of Section 

10 129(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7436 IH

1 amended by striking ‘‘$5,000 ($2,500’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘$15,000 ($7,500,’’. 

3 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made 

4 by paragraph (1) shall apply to taxable years begin5 ning after December 31, 2020. 

6 (b) CARRYFORWARD OF UNUSED BENEFITS UNDER

7 CAFETERIA PLANS.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 125(d)(2) of the In9 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding 

10 at the end the following new subparagraph: 

11 ‘‘(E) CARRYFORWARD OF UNUSED BENE12 FITS UNDER DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE

13 FLEXIBLE SPENDING ARRANGEMENTS.— 

14 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding 

15 subparagraph (A), a plan or arrangement 

16 may permit a participant in a dependent 

17 care assistance flexible spending arrange18 ment to elect to carry forward any aggre19 gate unused balances in the participant’s 

20 accounts under such arrangement as of the 

21 close of any year to the succeeding year. 

22 Such carryforward shall be treated as hav23 ing occurred within 30 days of the close of 

24 the year. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7436 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) LIMITATION.—The amount 

2 which a participant may elect to carry for3 ward under clause (i) from any year shall 

4 be any aggregate unused balances in the 

5 participant’s account at the close of any 

6 year. 

7 ‘‘(iii) EXCLUSION FROM GROSS IN8 COME.—No amount shall be included in 

9 gross income under this chapter by reason 

10 of any carry forward under this subpara11 graph. 

12 ‘‘(iv) COORDINATION LIMITS.—The 

13 maximum amount which may be contrib14 uted to a dependent care assistance flexible 

15 spending arrangement for any year to 

16 which an unused amount is carried under 

17 this subparagraph shall not be reduced by 

18 such unused amount.’’. 

19 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 

20 by this subsection shall take effect on the date of the 

21 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>1

       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    OCT-30-1998
<CASH>                                               15,700
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       197,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    271,200
<PP&E>                                            1,291,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                      600,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,208,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               804,100
<BONDS>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                          7,400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,208,600
<SALES>                                             374,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    374,000
<CGS>                                               320,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       372,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   15,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (26,200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (26,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (26,200)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        

</TABLE>
United States


Securities and Exchange Commission


Washington, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K








CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the


Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): May 3, 2016














DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.





(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)








Ohio000-2449865-0190407(State or other jurisdiction ofincorporation)(Commission File Number)(I.R.S. EmployerIdentification No.)


325 John H. McConnell Blvd., Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio43215(Address of Principal Executive Offices)(Zip Code)





Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code:   (614) 255-3333








Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





 ̈ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





 ̈ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





 ̈ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





 ̈ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))











---







Item 8.01   Other Events





The following is a summary of assets under management as of April 30, 2016 of Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. (in millions):





By Investment VehicleProprietary funds$12,252Sub-advised funds627Institutional accounts4,830Total$17,709





By Investment StrategySmall Cap$1,761Small-Mid Cap2,710Large Cap7,803Select (All Cap)510Long-Short4,498Corporate Credit427Total$17,709








SIGNATURES





Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.Date:May 3, 2016By:/s/ Thomas E. LineThomas E. Line, Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3636]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, and 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 9622(d)(2), notice is hereby given that on January 30, 1997, a 
Consent Decree was lodged in United States v. E.I. DuPont deNemours et 
al., Civil Action No. 3:CV-97-149, with the United States District 
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
    The Complaint in this case was filed under Sections 106 and 107 of 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 
Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 9606 and 9607, 
with respect to the Bell Landfill Superfund Site located in Bradford 
County, Pennsylvania, against E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co., GTE 
Operations Support, Inc., and Masonite Corporation. Pursuant to the 
terms of the Consent Decree, which resolves claims under the above-
mentioned statute and under Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6973, the settling defendants 
will perform the clean-up of the site, which EPA estimates will cost 
$3,500,000, reimburse the Superfund for response costs incurred by the 
United States in the amount of $176,000, and reimburse the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania for response costs in the amount of $35,000.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree for a period of thirty days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to 
United States v. E.I. DuPont deNemours et al., Civil Action No. 3:CV-
97-149, DOJ Ref. No. 90-11-3-1390A. Commenters may request an 
opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area, in accordance 
with Section 7003(d) of RCRA.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, Middle District of Pennsylvania, 228 Walnut 
Street, Federal Building, Suite 217, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Copies 
of the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, 
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202-624-0892) and the offices of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. When requesting a copy by mail, 
please enclose a check in the amount of $25.75 (twenty-five cents per 
page reproduction costs) payable to the ``Consent Decree Library.''
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-3636 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7445 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7445

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for home 
loans from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to certain members of the 
                reserve components of the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 1, 2020

    Mr. Bost (for himself, Mr. Cunningham, and Mr. David P. Roe of 
  Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for home 
loans from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to certain members of the 
                reserve components of the Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS OF 
              THE ARMED FORCES FOR HOME LOANS FROM THE SECRETARY OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) Extension of Eligibility.--Section 3701(b) of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(7) The term `veteran' also includes, for purposes of 
        home loans, an individual who performed active service (as that 
        term is defined in section 101 of title 10) for a period--
                    ``(A) of not less than 90 cumulative days; and
                    ``(B) that includes 30 consecutive days.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3702(a)(2) of such title is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(G) Each individual described in section 3701(b)(7) of 
        this title.''.
                                 <all>
```
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10989 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. RO D ER I CKG EN E R EE D , a l s o kno w n a s Rod , D e fe nda nt

- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 96- C R

- 68- 2

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * R o d e rick G e n e R e e d , 4 6 9 8 8 -0 1 9 , w a s s e n te n ce d to a n en h a n ce d te rm o f l ife i n pr i son f

oll ow i n g h i s con victi on s f or p oss ess i on of coca i n e a n d coca i n e basew ith i n t en tto d i st ribu t e, m ai n t ai n i n g a resi den ce f or p u rposes of

di st ribu t i n g dru gs, a n d p o s s e s s io n o f a fir e a r m b ya fe lo n . T h is co u r t a ffir m e d o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. Un i t e dS t a t e s v . McBro wn , N o . 9 6 -1 1 4 9 1 ,( 5 th C ir. J u n e 2 2 , 1 9 9 8 ) (u n p u b li sh e d ). R eed h as been un successf u li n seeki n g rel i ef u n der 28 U

. S

. C

. § 225 5. R eed als o United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 14, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-10989 Document: 00511111507 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2010N o. 09- 10989

2 f i l ed an unsuc c es sf

ulm ot i on t o r educ e hi s se nt enc e under18 U

. S. C

. § 3582(c ) ( 2) du e t o t h e cr ack cocai n e am en dm en t s t o t h e Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es. Ree d f i l e d am o t i o n r e que s t i ng t h at h e b e g r ant e d ane w s e nt e nc i ng pr o c e e di ng by w r i to f e r r o rc o r am no bi s . Ree d c o nt e nds t hatt he e nhan c e m e nt i n f orm ati on f

i l ed byt h e G overnm en tw as defect ive an d that t h e di st ri ctcourt th u s l a ck ed j u ri sd i cti on to i m p ose an en h a n ced se n ten ce of l i fe i m p ri son m en t. T h e di st ri ctcourtf

ou n d that r el i ef

pu rsuan tt o a w ri tof co ra m n obi s w as not avai l abl e b ec ause R ee d w as i n cus t ody. Itis u n d is p u te d th a t R e e d w a s in cu s to d yw h e n h e s o u g h t c o r a m n o b is
r e l i e f a nd i s s t i l l i n c u s t o d y . Th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n f i n d i n g t h a tt he
w r it o f c o r a m n o b is is n o t a n a v e n u e o f r e lie f a v a ila b le to h im

. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Dyer , 1 3 6 F .3d 4 1 7 , 4 2 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). AF F I RMED. Case: 09-10989 Document: 00511111507 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STANLEY MARCUS GALYEAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES 

INC.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-35604

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01359-MJP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016**

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. 

Stanley Marcus Galyean appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of the 

foreclosure of his home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-35604 

de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

To the extent that Galyean raises his contract claims on appeal, the district 

court properly dismissed them because Galyean failed to allege facts sufficient to 

state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro se 

pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations 

sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Zuver v. Airtouch 

Communications, Inc., 103 P.3d 753, 759-68 (Wash. 2004) (discussing 

unconscionability of contracts under Washington law). Galyean waived any 

challenge to the dismissal of his other claims, most of which were dismissed as 

time-barred, by failing to explain in his opening brief how the district court erred. 

See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments 

not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). 

We reject as without merit Galyean’s contentions that Defendant IndyMac 

Federal Bank did not exist at the time defendants foreclosed on his home, that his 

loan was improperly “converted to an eMortgage,” and that he had the right to 

demand production of his promissory note prior to paying it.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           NOV-2-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-02-1997
<CASH>                                           4,162
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                       910
<INVENTORY>                                     66,305
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,143
<PP&E>                                          56,975
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,604
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,624
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,307
<BONDS>                                          1,663
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,025
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,429
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,624
<SALES>                                         61,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,938
<CGS>                                           44,502
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 707
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,390)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       565
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,955)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,955)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
#### Charles Z. MELVIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-610.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 9, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
File a Complaint 

ftc.gov/complaint 

877-FTC-HELP

Deputy Directors

Monica Vaca

Rebecca Unruh

Audrey Austin (Acting)

Federal Trade Commission 

Bureau of Consumer Protection 

Updated 1/29/2024

Director 

Samuel Levine

Chief of Staff 

Carolyn L. Hann

Assistant Director for 

Regional Operations 

Lisa Rothfarb (Acting) 

Chief Litigation Counsel

Bikram Bandy

Counsel to the Director

Barbara Chun

Elizabeth Nach

Elizabeth Averill

Colin Hector

Division of Division of Division of Division of Division of Division of Division of Division of 

Advertising Consumer & Consumer Enforcement Financial Litigation Marketing Privacy &

Practices Business Response & Practices Technology Practices Identity

Education Operations & Analysis Protection 

Associate Director 

James Kohm 

Assistant Directors

Laura Koss 

Doug Wolfe 

Amanda Basta 

Sarah Waldrop 

(acting)

Associate Director 

Lois Greisman 

Assistant Directors

Will Maxson 

Dotan Weinman 

Rhonda Perkins

(acting)

Chief of Staff

Patty Hsue (acting)

Associate Director

Maria Mayo 

Assistant Directors 

Aaron Hutchinson 

Ami Dziekan

Associate Director

Jennifer Leach 

Assistant Director

Karen Hobbs

Rosario Méndez

Associate Director

Laura DeMartino

Assistant Directors 

Hugh Huettner

Elizabeth Kwok

Associate Director

Malini Mithal 

Assistant Directors 

Sandy Brown 

Heather Allen

Jason Adler 

Chief of Staff

Stephanie Rosenthal

Associate Director 

Ben Wiseman 

Assistant Directors

Mark Eichorn 

Bob Schoshinski

Tiffany George

Chief of Staff

Katherine McCarron

Associate Director 

Serena Viswanathan

Assistant Directors

Tawana Davis

Rick Quaresima

Janice Kopec

Chief of Staff

Courtney Estep 

East Central Midwest Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest Western 

Region Region Region Region Region Region Region 

(Cleveland) (Chicago) (New York) (Seattle) (Atlanta) (Los Angeles) (Dallas)

Regional Director Regional Director Regional Director 

William Efron Anna Burns Maricela Segura

Assistant Regional Assistant Regional Assistant Regional 

Director Director Director 

Regional Director 

Jonathan Steiger 

Assistant Regional 

Director 

Christian Capece

Regional Director 

Todd Kossow

Assistant Regional 

Director 

Joannie Wei Deborah Marrone

Regional Director 

Chuck Harwood

Assistant Regional 

Director 

Jennifer Tourjé Nicholas May

Regional Director 

Matthew Wernz

Assistant Regional 

Director 

Matt Wilshire Faye Chen Barnouw

Western 

Region 

(San Francisco)

Regional Director 

Kerry O’Brien 

Assistant Regional 

Director 

Emily Burton
#### Emmett Bruce GANTT, Appellant, v. Lester BENNETT, d/b/a Bennett Drugs, Appellee.

No. 72-1187.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website
(r eleased the week prior to November 17, 2020 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :

A

- 20

- 027 State v. Cain

A

- 20

- 272, A

- 20

- 273 In re Interest of Halo D. & Hadlee D.

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov: http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

. Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here: http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c ca les/

.