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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8062 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8062

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide electronic filing 
   receipts to taxpayers who file tax returns via electronic filing 
                    process, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 14, 2020

   Mr. Vela 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 provide electronic filing 
   receipts to taxpayers who file tax returns via electronic filing 
                    process, 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 ``E-Filing Standards Improvement 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ELECTRONIC FILING REQUIREMENTS AMENDED TO INCLUDE RECEIPTS, 
              REJECTION EXPLANATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 6011(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) The Secretary shall promote the use of electronically 
        filed returns by requiring that all taxpayers submitting 
        returns of tax via electronic filing process shall be issued an 
        e-filing receipt via the taxpayer's chosen method of 
        correspondence which shall indicate the acceptance or rejection 
        of a return, and if such return is rejected--
                    ``(A) such receipt shall provide information about 
                the steps necessary to resolve the issue causing such 
                rejection,
                    ``(B) the taxpayer shall be allowed 15 business 
                days to correct and re-submit such return, and
                    ``(C) if such return is not re-submitted within 15 
                business days, such return shall be treated as a paper 
                return.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6651 of such Code is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(k) Treatment of returns granted extension or treated as 
        paper returns under section 6011(f).--In the case of a return 
        granted a 15 business day extension or treated as a paper 
        return under section 6011(f), such return shall be treated as 
        timely filed by the taxpayer and not subject to the addition to 
        the tax under subsection (a).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to returns of tax submitted filing via electronic filing process 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### LATIN AMERICAN BENEFIT CENTER, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Raphael JOHSTONEAUX, Appellee.

No. 71-751.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 25, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1972.

*87Suarez, Carricarte & Freire, Miami, for appellant.

Pelzner & Schwedock, Miami, for appel-lee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL, J., and LESTER, M. IGNATIUS, Associate Judge.

LESTER, Associate Judge.

 By this appeal, the appellant seeks to have this court determine the propriety of the trial court’s ruling that a contract entered into by the parties herein was, in fact, a contract of insurance, entitling the appellee to payment thereunder and attorney’s fees. This we cannot do, for the following reasons:

The contract sued upon has not been included in the record on appeal before this court and, where the ruling appealed is necessarily predicated upon said contract, we are precluded from ruling thereon. Broward County Port Authority v. F. M. Rule & Company, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 82; Holmes v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1967, 203 So.2d 44. It is the responsibility and the duty of the appellant to provide the appellate court with a record sufficient to review the matter assigned as error. Merchants National Bank of Jacksonville, Florida v. Grunthal, 39 Fla. 388, 22 So. 685; Conlee Construction Company v. Cay Construction Company, Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 792; Dimun Investment, Inc. v. Citizens Federal Savings and Loan Association of Hialeah, Fla. App. 1970, 249 So.2d 63.

 In reviewing the record before this court, we find that the appellant did in fact direct the Clerk of the trial court to include in the record on appeal a copy of the contract sued upon, but that the Clerk was unable to do so because said contract was returned to the appellee, pursuant to the trial court’s order. Therefore, it would appear, upon a superficial examination, that the appellant had fulfilled his burden of providing this court with a complete record. However, the appellant’s duty does not end with filing its directions to the Clerk but *88continues placing upon the appellant the overall duty of seeing to it that all things are done in due season to perfect the appeal in the manner prescribed by the rules. Where ministerial duties imposed on court officials are not timely and properly performed, the appellant is presumed to have knowledge thereof and it becomes his duty to take such affirmative action necessary to cause the ministerial acts to be performed and the record to be corrected. Moore v. Joseph, Fla.App.1962, 137 So.2d 584; Gulf Heating and Refrigeration Company, Inc. v. Iowa Mutual Insurance Company, Fla.1966, 193 So.2d 4. Having failed in this duty, the appellant herein cannot now contend the failure to provide a complete record for appeal purposes was not of his doing.

Therefore, as the appellant has failed to provide this court with a complete record, necessary for review of this cause, the judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### James R. CLEARE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-876.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 22, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
H. R. 588

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 20 South

Main in Beaver, Utah, as the ‘‘Abe Murdock United States Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

20 South Main in Beaver, Utah, is designated as the ‘‘Abe Murdock

United States Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

Any reference in any law, regulation, document, record, map,

or other paper of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 is deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Abe Murdock

United States Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 16-0167V 

Filed: June 20, 2016 

UNPUBLISHED 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

MELISSA LOPEZ and ADAM * 

GONZALEZ, on behalf of L.G., a minor * 

 * 

 Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; 

v. * Rotavirus Vaccine; Intussusception; 

 * Bowel Resection; Special Processing 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Unit (“SPU”) 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Michael Andrew London, Douglas & London, P.C., New York, NY, for petitioner. 

Claudia Barnes Gangi, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master: 

 On February 3, 2016, Melissa Lopez and Adam Gonzalez (hereinafter 

“petitioners”), on behalf of L.G., a minor, filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioners alleged that L.G. suffered intussusception, bowel resection, 

and the sequela as a result of a rotavirus vaccine administered to L.G. on April 9, 2015, 

when L.G. was 4 months old. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit (“SPU”) of the Office of Special Masters. 

On June 20, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes 

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report 

at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “L.G. suffered intussusception within the Table 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the 

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with 

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits 

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012). 
2 

Definition.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees that petitioners have met the statutory 

requirements for entitlement to compensation. Id.

 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Nora Beth Dorsey 

 Chief Special Master
Me m o r andu m

A u g u s t 21

, 2 0 1 2

Fr o m : Co l l e e n M cK au g ha n

, A ss o c i a t e D i r e c to r

, A i r D i v i s i o n , R e g i o n 9

T o: F il e

S ub j e c t: Con f i r m at i on f r o m G il a R i v e r I n d i an Co m m un i t y t h at C on s u l ta t i o n Re g a r d i ng 20 0 6 2 4-
hou r P M2

. 5 D e s i g n at i on i s Co m p l et e

O n F eb r ua r y

9

, 2 0 10, A p r il 6, 2 0 10, an d Oc tobe r 26, 2 010, I m et w i th t he G RI C t r i ba l c o un ci l a nd
the G RI C De p a rt m ent o f E n v i r on m enta l Q u a l i t y to c on s u l t w i th t he m r ega r d i n g de s i gna t i o n o f th e i r l a n d s f o r the 2 006 24

- h ou r P M 2 .5 N AA Q S

. O n A p r il 5, 201 2 I m et w i th R u d y M i x

, A c t i n g D i r e c to r

o f the G RIC D epa rt m ent o f E n vi r o n m enta l Q u a l i t y an d h i s s ta ff and i n f o r m ed the m that E P A

wou l d b e p r o c e ed i ng w i t h i t s i n i t i a l 2 006 24

- h ou r P M2

. 5 de si gn a t i o n a nd t o a s k i f fu rthe r

c on s u l t a t i o n w a s de s i r e d b y t h e t r i be. M r

. M i x c on f i r m ed t h at G RI C d i d n ot d e s i r e f u rthe r

c on s u l t a t i o n g i v en t hat E P A ' s up c o m i ng a c t i o n w o u l d b e a d e s i g na t i on o f

un c l a ss i f i a b l e / att a i n m ent.
<TABLE>
Exhibit 11            COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      Fluke Corporation and Subsidiaries

<CAPTION
                                     QUARTER ENDED          THREE QUARTERS ENDED
                                  1/23/98      1/24/97      1/23/98      1/24/97
<S>                            <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>  

Total shares outstanding at
  beginning of the period      18,332,592   17,401,680   18,092,960   17,305,910
  
Weighted average of shares
  issued under employee 
  stock plans                       5,982       15,634      166,734       74,580
  
Weighted average 
  shares outstanding           18,338,574   17,417,314   18,259,694   17,380,490
  
Effect of Dilutive 
  Stock Options                   541,409      475,566      601,951      375,108
  
Weighted average shares
  and share equivalents
  outstanding                  18,879,983   17,892,880   18,861,645   17,755,598
  
Earnings Per Share
  Basic                         $    0.41    $    0.43     $   1.18     $   1.12
  Diluted                       $    0.40    $    0.41     $   1.14     $   1.09

Net Income (in thousands)       $   7,522    $   7,422     $ 21,579     $ 19,385
</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      23**








**CONSENT
      OF REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**








We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      (i)
      Form S-8 (File No. 333-71068) effective October 5, 2001, and (ii) Form S-8
      (File
      No. 333-132944) effective April 3, 2006, of Proginet Corporation’s report dated
      September 14, 2007, on the financial statements included in the Annual report
      of
      Proginet Corporation of Form 10-KSB as of and for the year ended July 31,
      2007.











BDO
      SEIDMAN, LLP








Melville,
      New York


September
      20, 2007
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-69616, 333-49027, 333-69618, 333-89496, 333-114965, and 333-114969 on Forms S-8 of
our reports dated March 14, 2005, relating to the financial statements of Speedway Motorsports, Inc., which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 142 Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets as of January 1, 2002, and managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Speedway
Motorsports, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004.



|                          |  | 
|------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
|                         
|DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP    
|Charlotte, North Carolina



March 14, 2005
#### John Westerly BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-880.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 29, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Harry MURSTEN, Appellant, v. Linda Fenton MURSTEN, Appellee.

No. 72-1150.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 31, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
263 La. 366

#### Lucille B. DUFRENE et al. v. Martin MILLER et al.

No. 52936.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 16, 1972.

In re: Martin Miller applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. Charles. 266 So.2d 462.

Application denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in its judgment.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 649 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 649

 To amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act to require the slaughter 
             of poultry in accordance with humane methods.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 1993

  Mr. Jacobs (for himself, Mr. Shays, Mr. Borski, Mr. Towns, and Mr. 
   Mineta) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Poultry Products Inspection Act to require the slaughter 
             of poultry in accordance with humane methods.

    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 ``Humane Methods of Poultry Slaughter 
Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF HUMANE METHODS OF POULTRY SLAUGHTER.

    Section 7 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 456) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(b) Humane Methods of Slaughter.--Poultry shall be slaughtered in 
an official establishment referred to in subsection (a) only in 
accordance with 1 of the following humane methods:
            ``(1) Poultry is rendered insensible to pain by electrical, 
        chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective before or 
        immediately after being shackled or otherwise prepared for 
        slaughter.
            ``(2) Poultry is slaughtered in accordance with the ritual 
        requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith, 
        as described in section 2(b) of the Act of August 27, 1958 (72 
        Stat. 862; 7 U.S.C. 1902(b)).''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 1 year after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 17, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00418-CV
MARILYN GORAN, Appellant V. JITENDRA RAJPAL, Appellee
On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10-03581



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Ju stices Lang-Miers and Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Before the Court is appellant’s April 10, 2015 motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal.
Appellant has informed the Court that she no longer desires to purs ue the appeal. Accordingly,
we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

150418F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

MARILYN GORAN, Appellant

No. 05-15-00418-CV V.

JITENDRA RAJPAL, Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 10-03581. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered April 17, 2015.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 28484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13101]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 
1958, as amended, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of 
the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 
107.1900) to function as a small business investment company under the 
Small Business Investment Company License No. 05/75-0267 issued to 
Alpha Capital III SBIC, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and 
void.

United States Small Business Administration.

    Dated: April 27, 2018.
A. Joseph Shepard,
Associate Administrator for Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2018-13101 Filed 6-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Schwab, Margo" <Margo_Schwab@omb.eop.gov>, "Mancini, Dominic J." <Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov>, "Ky

Date: 12/20/2010 03:21 PM

Subject: Thanks, CO NAAQS submitted, awaiting any key studies and link to ISA etc.

Thank you Lydia and Deirdre for the briefing on CO last week; very helpful, particularly as folks seem to 

be so busy this week.

I have distributed the submitted draft for interagency review. When you get a chance to share key 

studies and the link to the ISA, Risk Assessment and other materials, I will forward those to interagency 

reviewers also.

FYI I have requested comments to OMB by Friday, Jan 14th. 

Best,

heidi
#### Jerry Hugh WIGGINS, Appellant, v. Ray JONES et al., Appellees.

No. 72-507.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 9, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.02


                            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 Benihana Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K/A for the period ended April 1, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jose I. Ortega, Vice
President - Finance, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/ Jose I. Ortega
-----------------------------------------
Jose I. Ortega
Vice President - Finance,
Chief Financial Officer

July 30, 2007


                                       27
263 La. 359

#### T. Monroe SISTRUNK, et ux. v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY.

No. 52901.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1972.

In re: Aetna Casualty & Surety applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of DeSoto. 267 So.2d 784.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the judgment is correct.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 18 - 00512 - CR NO. 03 - 18 - 0051 3 - CR NO. 03 - 18 - 00514 - CR

Ronaldo Zabaleta - Martinez, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 167TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO S . D - 1 - DC - 18 - 90401 4, D - 1 - DC - 18 - 904011 , D - 1 - DC - 18 - 904009 THE HONORABLE P. DAV ID WAHLBERG, JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due November 30, 2018 . On counsel’s motion s , the time for filing was extended to February 28, 2019

. Appellant’s counsel has now filed a third motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellant’s brief. We grant in part the motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than April 8, 2019. No further exte nsion of time will be granted and failure to comply with this order will result in the referral of this case to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

It is ordered on March 7, 2019.2

Before Justices G oodwin, Baker, and Triana Do Not Publish