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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7874 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7874

  To temporarily provide a zero rate of Federal income tax on income 
  properly attributable to the trade or business of home construction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2020

   Mr. Harder of California introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To temporarily provide a zero rate of Federal income tax on income 
  properly attributable to the trade or business of home construction.

    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 ``Construction Jobs During Coronavirus 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ZERO RATE OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON INCOME PROPERLY ATTRIBUTABLE 
              TO THE TRADE OR BUSINESS OF HOME CONSTRUCTION.

    (a) In General.--In the case of any specified taxable year of a 
taxpayer engaged in the trade or business of home construction, the 
rate of tax imposed under section 1 or 15 of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 on so much of the taxpayer's taxable income as is properly 
allocable to such trade or business shall be zero percent.
    (b) Trade or Business of Home Construction.--For purposes of this 
section, the term ``trade or business of home construction'' means the 
trade or business of constructing dwelling units in the United States. 
Such term shall include the construction of components of such dwelling 
units only if such construction is performed at the location of the 
final assembly of such dwelling unit. Such term shall not include any 
trade or business if such trade or business consists of services 
rendered as an employee.
    (c) Specified Taxable Year.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``specified taxable year'' means any taxable year beginning during the 
period beginning on January 1, 2020, and ending on the date on which 
the nationwide public health emergency declared under section 319 of 
the Public Health Service Act as a result of COVID-19 ends.
    (d) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary's 
designee) shall issue such regulations or other guidance as may be 
necessary or appropriate to carry out this section, including 
regulations or other guidance providing for the proper application of 
sections 1 and 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to taxable 
income to which subsection (a) of this section does not apply.
                                 <all>
```
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0793 SAT Date: 8/13/2013 Print Date: 4/1/2014
Related cases : Health related cases: Ecotox related cases :
Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 32

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ;

P 2 Rec Comments : Comment: N o Commen t Keywords : Keywords: LUNG UNCERT IMMUNO UNCERT MUTA UNCERT ONCO Summary of Assessment : Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0793 FATE:S < 0.001 mg/L at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = 0-90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = low - v.strong PBT Potential: P3B3 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl - rapid
Health : Health Summary: Absorption is poor all routes, based on analogs. There is concern for lung effects if inhaled, and uncertain concerns for immunotoxicity, mutagenicity, and oncogenicity based on information for carbon nanotubes
Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments
fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value * algal

_ chronic value * Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _
Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for nonionic polymers; SAR chemical class = p olyme r -nonionic-carbon; MW >100,000; S < 0.001 mg/L at 25 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;
Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *
SARs nonionic polyemrs SAR Class p olyme r -nonionic-carbon Ecotox Category N onionic Polymers Ecotox Factors Comments:SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000794 23-SEP-2015 09:49 AM
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):

                                 January 3, 2005

                       Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

                                      Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)

             000-24498                              65-0190407
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Commission File Number)         (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

      375 North Front Street, Suite 300, Columbus, Ohio              43215
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                    (Zip Code)

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

<PAGE>

Item 8.01.     Other Events
- -------   --------------------------------------------

          As of December 31, 2004, preliminary assets under management totaled
$523.2 million.  Following is a summary of assets under management as of
December 31, 2004 (in millions):

				Equity	Fixed Income	   Total
Individually Managed Accounts	$162.3	      $103.1      $265.4
Mutual Funds			 181.1	        55.0       236.1
Alternative Investments		  21.7	         0.0        21.7
                                ------        ------      ------
Total				 365.1	       158.1       523.2


                                    SIGNATURE
                                    ---------

     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: January 3, 2004                       By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                             Officer and Secretary
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT O F 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 19

- 00011

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 2018

- 46488

Style: Richard Andert Robins v

. Commission for Lawyer Discipline dba Texas Bar

aka State Bar of Texas

Date motion filed * : September 16, 2019

Typ e of motion: Agreed Motion to E xceed Wor d Limit

Party filing motion: Appellant, Richard Andert Robins

Document to be filed: Reply Brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions gra nted:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: September 26, 2019

Absent extraordi nary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

Judge's signature: /s/ Ev elyn V. Keyes

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: Sept ember 24, 2019
---

|March 30, 2012 | Exhibit 99.9
|-------------- | ------------

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Great Basin Gold Ltd. (the "Company")
|--- | -------------------------------------
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F           
|    | Consent of Expert                    

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2011, and any amendments
thereto, (the Annual Report) to be filed by the Company with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). The Annual Report
incorporates by reference the Annual Information Form of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with
reference to my involvement in the preparation of the following technical
reports (the "Technical Reports"):

- Technical Report Update on the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve
  Estimates for the Burnstone Gold Mine dated February 8, 2011; and
- Technical Report Update on the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve
  Estimates for the Hollister Gold Mine dated February 8, 2011

and to references to the Technical Reports, or portions
thereof, in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by
reference of the information derived from the Technical Reports in the Annual
Report.

I also consent to the use of my name in connection with
reference to my involvement in the preparation of the Technical Reports and to
references to the Technical Reports, or portions thereof, and to the inclusion
and incorporation by reference of the information derived from the Technical
Reports in the Companys Form F-10 Registration Statement, as amended, filed
with the SEC under File No. 333-163021.

Yours truly,

|/s/ Johannes G. Oelofse              | 
|------------------------------------ | 
|                                     | 
|Johannes G. Oelofse, FSAIMM Pr. Eng. | 

---
#### Randolph Lethe PEYTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-869.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 28, 1971.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; W. Rogers Turner, Judge.

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


<ARTICLE>             5
<CIK>        0000225628           
<NAME>    MEGADATA CORP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                        NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                     81,616
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                              43,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                               417,394
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          625,719
<PP&E>                                  4,638,795
<DEPRECIATION>                          3,255,212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          2,072,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     447,917
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      32,031
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                954,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            2,072,287
<SALES>                                   892,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          899,770
<CGS>                                     657,809
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           1,043,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         57,849
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (201,848)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (201,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                             (201,848)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.08)
        




</TABLE>
F E DE RA L T RA D E CO M M I S SI O N • F TC . G O V

2:00 pm

Opening Remarks from Chair

Lina M. Khan

Chair, Federal Trade Commission

2:10 pm

Staff Presentation

Josephine Liu

Assistant GeneralCounsel for Legal Counsel, Federal Trade Commission

2:20 pm

Remarks from Commissioner Slaughter

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter

Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

2:30 pm Panel 1: Industry Perspectives on Commercial Surveillance and

Data Security

Moderator:

OlivierSylvain

Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC

*Panelists:

Jason Kint

Chief Executive Officer, Digital ContentNext

Marshall Erwin

Chief Security Officer, Mozilla

Paul Martino

Vice President and Senior Policy Counsel,National Retail Federation 

Rebecca Finlay

Chief Executive Officer, Partnership on AI

*Meta is no longer able to participate

Panel 2: Consumer Advocate Perspectives on Commercial

Surveillance and Data Security

Moderator:

Rashida Richardson
F E DE RA L T RA D E CO M M I S SI O N • F TC . G O V

Commercial Surveillance and Data Security Public Forum

Office of the Chair, FTC

Panelists:

Caitriona Fitzgerald

DeputyDirector, Electronic Privacy Information Center(EPIC)

Harlan Yu

Executive Director, Upturn

Ambassador Karen Kornbluh (ret.)

Director, Digital Innovation and Democracy Initiative, German Marshall Fund of the

U.S.

Spencer Overton

President,Joint Centerfor Political and Economic Studies

Stacey Gray

Senior Director for U.S. Policy, Future of Privacy Forum (FPF)

4:45 pm

Remarks from Commissioner Bedoya

Alvaro Bedoya

Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission

5:00 pm Public Remarks
Ms. Genevieve Woy dziak

Secretary Treasurer Elkhorn Aviation, Inc., dba Baker Aircraft 43769 Heilner Road Baker City , OR 97814 Dear Ms. Woy dziak : This letter is to inform y ou that we are unable to process y our request for an exemption from § xx.xx of Ti tle 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). I t explains why we can’t process yo ur request and what y ou should do in the next 30 day s. **Why We Can’t Process Your Request** We entered y our October 26, 2011 , exemption request on behalf of Elkhorn Inc., dba B aker Aircraft into the public docket (No. FAA
- 20 11
- 1278 ), but we are unable to process y our request any

further. The information y ou sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, y o u must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which y ou seek relief, the extent of the relief y ou seek, and the reason y ou seek relief.

 The reasons why

granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why

the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety

or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which y ou seek an exemption.

 Any additional i nformation, views, or arguments available to support y our request. **What You Should Do** If y ou want us to process y our request any further, y ou must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 day s. We will consider the docket on y our requ est open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires y ou to2

send y our petition for exemption at least 120 day s before the proposed effective date of the exemption. **If We Don’t Hear From You** If we don’t h ear from y ou within 30 day s, we will close the docket without notifying y ou further. If y ou have any

questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267
- 9677. Sincerely ,
Id a M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosu re3

Project No.: A AM
- 12
- 086
- E Project Officer: _______________ ARM
- 10 1 : KJones : 11/22/11 :Doc# 333333 ARM
- 1/100/10 1 :Program Office AAM
- 800 Statistics: Reject Letter.doc, 390 words Original, 22 Nov 2011 13:06 Style Index 10 **Excellent** for a Lega l Document Average Sentence Length 18 **Excellent** Passive Index 0 **Excellent MS**  **GENEVIEVE WOYDZIAK**  **SECRETARY TREASURER**  **ELKHORN AVIATION**  **INC DBA**  **BAKER AIRCRAFT**  **43769 HEILNER**  **ROAD BAKER**  **CITY OR**  **97814**
#### Louis TARRALLO and Ronald Tarrallo, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-571.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 17, 1970.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; W. Rogers Turner, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10740 Su m m ar y Cal 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. S T E P H E N M IC H A E L E W IN G , a ls o k n o w n a s S te p h e n M ic h a e ls , 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 ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- C R
- 30- 2 B ef ore D AV IS, B A R K S D A L E an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * S t eph en M i cha elE w i n g ap pea l s hi s ju ry tr i alconvi ct i on s f or c on spi racy to d e fr a u dt h e In te r n a l R e v e n u e S e rv ic e a n dm u ltip le co u n ts o f ta xe v a s io n , m a il f raud, m ak i ng a fal s e s t at e m e nt t o a go ve r nm e nt ag e nc y, and m ak i n g fal se s ta te m e n ts in re la tio n to h e a lth ca r e m a tt e r s . O n a p p e a l, E w in ga r g u e s o n ly t h at hi s previ ou sly ret ai n ed coun selprovi dedi n ef fect ive assi st an ce duri n g prei n di ct m en tdi scussi on s w i t h t h e G overnm en t . E w i n g asse rts tha thi s c ou n sel United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 26, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10740

2 fail e d t o a dv i s e hi m of t he r i s ks o f hi s c o o pe r at i o n wi t h t he G o ve r nm e nta nd fail e d t o ne go t i at e a ny s o r to f i m m uni t y ag r e e m e nti n r e t ur n f o r hi s c o o pe r at i o n. I n t he ab s e nc e o f a r i ghtt o c o uns e l , ade fe nda ntha s no c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ght to th e e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. Se eCole m an v . Tho mps o n, 501 U . S. 722, 7 5 2 (1 9 9 1 ); W

ainw rightv . Tor na, 4 5 5 U . S . 5 8 6 , 5 8 7
- 8 8 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . T h e S u p r e me C ou rtha s hel d t h at t h e “ ri gh t t o coun sel att ach es on l y at oraf t er t h e i n i t i ati on o f ad ve rsa ryj u d i ci a lpr oce ed i n gs ag a i n st t h e d efen d a n t. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. G o u v eia , 467 U . S. 180, 187 ( 1984) . Adver s ar y j udi c i alpr oc ee di ngs m ay be gi n “by w ay of f orm alcharge, prel i m i n ary h eari n g, i n di ct m en t , in f orm ati on , or a rra i gn m en t. ” Kirbyv. Illi n o is , 4 0 6 U .S . 6 8 2 , 6 8 9 (19 7 2 ). I n t he i ns t antc as e , a l t ho ughEw i ng w as w ar n ed i n 2 00 4 t hathe m i ght h ave som e cr i m i n alex po s ur e , “ adve r s ary j udic i alpr oceedi n gs” di d n otcom m en ce u n til a n in d ic tm e n t w a s file d2 0 0 7 . Se eG o uv e i a, 4 6 7 U .S . a t 1 8 7 ; Ki rby, 406 U . S . at 689 . B ecau se E w i n g’ s Si xth A m en dm en tri gh tt o coun selha d n otyet att ach ed, he h adno consti t u t i on alri gh tt o t h e ef fect ive assi st an ce of coun sel d u r in gh is p r e -in d ic tm e n t d is c u s s io n s w ith th e G o v e r n m e n t. Se eCole m an, 501 U . S. at752. AF F I RMED.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00612

- CR

Lupe Ortiz
v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 82nd District Court of Falls County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10604

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

app eal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
April 4, 2024
CERTIFICATIONS
             /s/ David J. Schulte
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 12
- 00046
- CR JUSTIN S. MATHEWS , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011
- 1351
- C1
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Justin Mathews appeals from a conviction for aggravated robbery for which he was sentenced to life in prison. T EX
. P EN
. C ODE A NN . § 29.03 (a)(2). Mathews complains that the trial court erred by providing a misleading instruction regarding good conduct time and erred in instructing the jury not to consider “sympathy” in assessing punishment. We affirm.Mathews v. State Page 2

Parole Law and Good Time Jury Charge Instruction Mathews complains in his first issue that the jury charge’s instructions regarding parole and good time were erroneous because the i nstructions allow the jury to consider that a defendant might be released early solely due to accruing good conduct time. Mathews contends that the statutory language required to be set forth pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.07, section 4 (a) in the jury charge is insufficient and misleading. Mathews did not object to the jury charge on this basis. We have previously decided this precise issue against Mathews’s position and are not persuaded to reconsider our ruling. See Gaither v. State , No. 10

- 11

- 00129

- CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5252 at *3, (Tex. App.

— Waco June 27, 2012, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication) . We overrule issue one. Sympathy Mathews complains in his second issue that the trial court erred by instructing the jury not to consider “sympathy” in its deliberations in the jury charge in the punishment phase of his trial. Mathews did not object to the jury charge on this basis. We have also previously decided this issue against Mathews’s position and are not persuaded to reconsider our ruling. See Gaither v. State, No. 10

- 11

- 00129

- CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 5252 at *4, (Tex. App.

— Waco June 27, 2012, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication) ; Lewis v. State, No. 10

- 09

- 00322

- CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6074 at *4 (Tex. App.

— Waco Aug. 3, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated forMathews v. State Page 3

publication); Turner v. State , No. 10

- 09

- 00307

- CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6072 at *4, (Tex. App.

— Waco Aug. 3, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication); Wilson
v. State , 267 S.W.3d 215, 219

- 20 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2008, pet. ref’d). We overrule Mathews’s second issue.
Conclusion Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Dav is, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed August 30, 2012 Do not publish [CRPM]