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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7576 

To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to make 

a technical correction to the water rights settlement for the ShoshonePaiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2020 

Mr. AMODEI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

2009 to make a technical correction to the water rights 

settlement for the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck 

Valley Reservation, 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 ‘‘Technical Correction 

5 to the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Res6 ervation Water Rights Settlement Act of 2020’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7576 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON 

2 TRUST FUNDS ESTABLISHED UNDER SETTLE3 MENT. 

4 Section 10807 of the Omnibus Public Land Manage5 ment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11; 123 Stat. 1408) 

6 is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)(3)— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘There is’’ and inserting 

9 the following: 

10 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—There is’’; and 

11 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(B) INTEREST PAYMENTS.—There is au13 thorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for 

14 deposit into the Development Fund the interest 

15 that would have accrued during the period be16 ginning on October 1, 2009, and ending on 

17 January 25, 2016, on balances held in the De18 velopment Fund, as calculated using the appli19 cable rate for interest-bearing obligations of the 

20 United States if the amounts in the Develop21 ment Fund had been invested in accordance 

22 with— 

23 ‘‘(i) the Act of April 1, 1880 (21 Stat. 

24 70, chapter 41; 25 U.S.C. 161); and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7576 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) the first section of the Act of 

2 June 24, 1938 (52 Stat. 1037, chapter 

3 648; 25 U.S.C. 162a).’’; and 

4 (2) in subsection (c)(3)— 

5 (A) by striking ‘‘There is’’ and inserting 

6 the following: 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—There is’’; and 

8 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(B) INTEREST PAYMENTS.—There is au10 thorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for 

11 deposit into the Maintenance Fund the interest 

12 that would have accrued during the period be13 ginning on October 1, 2009, and ending on 

14 January 25, 2016, on balances held in the 

15 Maintenance Fund, as calculated using the ap16 plicable rate for interest-bearing obligations of 

17 the United States if the amounts in the Mainte18 nance Fund had been invested in accordance 

19 with— 

20 ‘‘(i) the Act of April 1, 1880 (21 Stat. 

21 70, chapter 41; 25 U.S.C. 161); and 

22 ‘‘(ii) the first section of the Act of 

23 June 24, 1938 (52 Stat. 1037, chapter 

24 648; 25 U.S.C. 162a).’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
No. 99-1964.

#### Booth *v.*Churner et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. [Cer-tiorari granted, *ante,*p. 956.] Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave, to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae*and for divided argument granted.
(Letterhead of KPMG Peat Marwick LLP)


                                   EXHIBIT 16






February 13, 1998



Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We were previously principal accountants for Essex Hospitality Associates III
L.P. and, under the date of February 13, 1997, we reported on the financial
statements of Essex Hospitality Associates III L.P. as of and for the years
ended December 31, 1996 and 1995. On February 13, 1998 our appointment as
principal accountants was terminated. We have read Essex Hospitality Associates
III L.P.'s statements included under Item 4 of its Form 8-K dated February 13,
1998, and we agree with such statements.

Very truly yours,



/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
#### U. S. FLUORESCENT MANUFACTURING COMPANY, a Florida corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Alson Industries, Inc., and Alson Industries, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

Nos. 72-904, 72-905.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 27, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Malcolm MacKENZIE, Petitioner, v. Yvonne MEIS, Trustees of Mease Hospital, Inc., and Lois MacKenzie, Respondents.

No. 70-880.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 7, 1971.

John T. Allen, Jr., and Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.

Masterson, Lloyd, Sundberg & Rogers, St. Petersburg, for Yvonne Meis.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied. See Duran v. McPherson, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 639.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORTS, INC.



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Annual Report of Speedway Motorsports, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, William R.
Brooks, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, 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 operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                                                        |  |  |  | 
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|Date: March 14, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ William R. Brooks                                                 
|                     |  |     |  | William R. Brooks Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to, and will be retained by, Speedway Motorsports, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John O. STEPHENS.

No. 60771.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1977.

In re: John 0. Stephens applying for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for stay order.

Writ denied. Considering the trial court’s finding after evidentiary hearing on the underlying charges upon which the new convictions are based, we find no error in the trial court’s revocation of petitioner’s probation.
#### Geraldine BAIAMONTE and James H. Berry, Appellants, v. Dominick BURO, Appellee.

No. 72-1273.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 3, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7766 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the research 

tax credit and provide better access to the credit for business startups. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 23, 2020 

Mrs. WALORSKI (for herself and Mr. ARRINGTON) 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 research tax credit and provide better access to the 

credit for business startups. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN RESEARCH CREDIT AND BETTER 

4 ACCESS TO CREDIT FOR STARTUPS. 

5 (a) CREDIT RATE INCREASE.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 41(a) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘20 

8 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘40 percent’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7766 IH

1 (2) ALTERNATIVE SIMPLIFIED CREDIT.—Sec2 tion 41(c)(4)(A) of such Code is amended by strik3 ing ‘‘14 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘28 percent’’. 

4 (3) CREDIT RATE IN CASE OF NO RESEARCH

5 EXPENSES IN 3 PRECEDING YEARS.—Section 

6 41(c)(4)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended by striking 

‘‘6 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘1 7 ⁄2 the credit percentage 

8 in effect under subparagraph (A)’’. 

9 (b) MODIFICATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PORTION

10 ALLOWED AGAINST PAYROLL TAX.— 

11 (1) INCREASE IN LIMITATION.—Paragraphs 

12 (4)(B)(i) and (5)(B)(ii) of section 41(h) of such 

13 Code are each amended by striking ‘‘$250,000’’ and 

14 inserting ‘‘$500,000’’. 

15 (2) QUALIFIED SMALL BUSINESS GROSS RE16 CEIPTS THRESHOLD.—Section 41(h)(3)(A)(i)(I) of 

17 such Code is amended by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and 

18 inserting ‘‘the dollar amount in effect for the taxable 

19 year under section 448(c)(1)’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

21 (1) SUBSECTION (a).—The amendments made 

22 by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years begin23 ning after December 31, 2020. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7766 IH

1 (2) SUBSECTION (b).—The amendments made 

2 by subsection (b) shall apply to taxable years begin3 ning after December 31, 2019. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Salvadore OVELLA.

No. 61027.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1977.

In re: Salvadore Ovella applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order. Parish of Jefferson.

Denied.
TIMELINE FOR 2010 PRIMARY SO 2 NAAQS DESIGNATION PROCESS

M ILESTONE D ATE **

ROUND 1

– Areas Associated with 2009

- 2011 Monitored Violations
EPA signs notice promulgating final SO 2 area designations for 29 nonattainment areas July 25, 2013

FR Publication (78 FR 47191) August 5, 2013 Effective Date October 4, 2013

RO UND 2

– Areas Associated with 68 Power Plants & New Monitored Violations

Court Order March 2, 2015 States may submit updated recommendations and supporting information for area designations to EPA No later than September 18, 2015

EPA notifies states concerning any intended modifications to their recommendations (120

- day letters) January 22, 2016 (no later than 120 days prior to final designations)

EPA publishes public notice of state recommendations and EPA’s intended modifications and initiates 30

- day public comment period o/a February 3, 2016

End of 30

- day public comment period o/a March 4, 2016 States and tribes submit additional information, if desired, to demonstrate why an EPA modification is inappropriate o/a April 8, 2016

EPA signs notice promulgating final SO 2 area designations (no later than 16 months from Court Order) No later than July 2, 2016

ROUND 3

– Modeled Areas and Areas w/o Monitors
States submit air quality modeling results for selected areas (

per proposed SO 2 DRR * ) January 13 , 2017

EPA notifies states concerning any intended modifications to their recommendations (120

- day letters) No later than September 1, 2017

EPA signs notice promulgating final SO 2 area designations (per C ourt O rder) No later than December 31, 2017

ROUND 4

– New Monitored Areas/All Remaining Areas States begin operating new monitoring network ( per proposed SO 2 DRR * ) January 1, 2017

States certif

y 2019 monitoring data (to calculate 2017

- 2019 design value) May 1 , 2020

EPA notifies states concerning any intended modifications to their recommendations (120

- day letters) No later than September 2, 2020

EPA signs notice promulgating final SO 2 area designations (per C ourt O rder) No Later than December 31, 2020

* Proposed SO 2 DRR = Data Requirements Rule for the 1

- Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); Proposed Rule (79 FR 27446, May 13, 2014) ** o/a = on or about
#### Michael R. HAASE, a minor, through his father and next friend, Harry F. Haase, and Harry F. Haase, individually, Appellants, v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a corporation and Heinz R. Weiss, Appellees.

No. 70-81.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 20, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Roy Junior YATES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-489.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 6, 1971.

Louis 0. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. See Zide v. State, 212 So.2d 788 (Fla.App.1968), cert. den. 394 U.S. 911, 89 S.Ct. 1026, 22 L.Ed.2d 223 (1969).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
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 AnnualReport of Network CN Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year endedDecember 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), I, Godfrey Chin Tong Hui, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to§§.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 result of operations of the		Company. |
|                                    |

 
| /s/		Godfrey Chin Tong Hui   |
|----------------------------------------|
| Godfrey Chin Tong Hui        |
| Chief		Executive Officer     |
| March		30, 2007              |

 

1

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         June 14, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 8, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 440 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-163, CP2018-234.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-12744 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
From: sshuput@hotmail.com

To: nick@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Re Docket ID:EPA-HQ-2010-0505 Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:56:43 -0600

Mr. Nick Parsons Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/CCGEPA Denver (Region 8) In Re Docket ID: EPA-HQ-Oq-2010-0505

Dear Mr Parsons,

Air Quality is already bad enough on the Wasatch fr ont where I live. We don't need more oil drilling w ith the consequent rise in grenhouse gas emissions. We need clean energy instead. The health of our people is clearly at stake. Don't allow more drilling on the Colorado P lateau to increase our air pollution. Stephen R Shuput MD



### FW: Re Docket ID:EPA-HQ-2010-0505 Stephen Shuput
to: Nick Parsons 08/02/2010 12:03 PM Show Details Page 1 of 1

8/9/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Set tings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web5808.h

...
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-92006 and 333-2464) on Form S-3 and the registration statements (Nos.
33-70908, 33-49738, 33-94242 and 333-988) on Form S-8 of Oxford Health Plans,
Inc. of our report dated February 23, 1998, relating to the financial 
statements schedule of Oxford Health Plans, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December
31, 1997 and 1996 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended DEcember 31, 1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997
annual report on Form 10-K/A No.2 of Oxford Health Plans, Inc.   
                                                                               

                                     KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Stamford, Connecticut
April 30, 1998
Metropolitan Area,Reports per 100K Population"Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area",487,"This chart identifies Metropolitan Areas (Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) with a population of 100,000 or more.  Metropolitan areas are defined by Office of Management and Budget Bulletin No. 15-01, ""Revised Delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Delineations of These Areas"" (July 15, 2015).",
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Hartford Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending July 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),

INeil H. Ellis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.     The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

2.    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/Neil H. Ellis_______________________________________________________Neil H. EllisPresident and Chief ExecutiveOfficer

Date:  September 14, 2005
#### EMPLOYERS’ SURPLUS LINE INSURANCE CO. v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE and Parish of East Baton Rouge.

No. 61763.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 31, 1978.

In re: City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 354 So.2d 631.

Writ granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald Young, Appellant.

[723 NYS2d 588]

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Oswego County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a guilty plea of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]). He contends that County Court erred in accepting the plea without first inquiring into his alleged intoxication at the time of the offense. We reject that contention. Defendant’s summary recitation of the facts underlying the plea did not cast doubt upon defendant’s guilt so as to require an inquiry *(see, People v Rivera,*266 AD2d 576, 577). The issue of intoxication was raised for the first time in the presentence report, and defendant failed to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction. Thus, to the extent that defendant’s contention is based on the presentence report, that contention is not preserved for our review *(see, People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665-666; *People v Boone,*201 AD2d 356, *Iv denied*83 NY2d 849; *see also, People v Brooks,*270 AD2d 569, 570, *Iv denied*95 NY2d 794; *People v Rodriguez,*262 AD2d 242, *Iv denied*93 NY2d 1045). In any event, that report does not recite that defendant claimed that he was innocent. Rather, defendant offered intoxication as an explanation for his actions and did not assert that he was so intoxicated that he was unable to form the intent necessary for the commission of robbery in the second degree *(see,*Penal Law § 15.25).

The waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses *951his contention that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe *{see, People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737). We agree with defendant’s further contention, however, that the court erred in determining the amount of restitution without holding a hearing. “[B]ecause the terms of the plea bargain set forth in the record do not include restitution, the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass defendant’s challenge to the restitution ordered by the court” *{People v Oehler,*278 AD2d 807, 807-808). “Neither the plea agreement itself nor the minutes of the plea allocution support the amount ordered” *{People v Oehler, supra,*at 808). “The court’s reliance on the victim impact statement was inappropriate because the statement was not sworn” *{People v White,*266 AD2d 831, 832). Contrary to the People’s contention, “[t]he fact that defendant neither requested a hearing nor objected to the amount does not constitute waiver” *{People v White, supra,*at 832). We therefore modify the judgment by vacating the amount of restitution, and we remit the matter to Oswego County Court for a hearing to determine the amount of restitution. (Appeal from Judgment of Oswego County Court, McCarthy, J. — Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present— Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.