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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 836 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 836

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore and increase the 
 deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

Mr. Hutchinson 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 restore and increase the 
 deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals.

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

SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS OF SELF-EMPLOYED 
              INDIVIDUALS INCREASED AND MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) Deduction Made Permanent.--
            (1) In general.--Subsection (l) of section 162 of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rules for 
        health insurance costs of self-employed individuals) is amended 
        by striking paragraph (6).
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (a) of section 110 of 
        the Tax Extension Act of 1991 is amended by striking paragraph 
        (2).
            (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
        shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1991.
    (b) Deduction Increased to 100 Percent.--
            (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 162(l) of such 
        Code is amended by striking ``25 percent of''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
        shall apply to amounts paid for insurance coverage for periods 
        after June 30, 1992.

                                 <all>
```
1

Filed 12/16/14 In re F.A. CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re F.A., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

F.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A142264

 (Contra Costa County

 Super. Ct. No. J11-00741)

F. A. appeals from an order continuing him as a ward of the juvenile court and 

ordering his out of home placement. His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief 

seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 

Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude 

there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.

DISCUSSION

F.A. first came under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court in 2011, when he 

entered a no contest plea to allegations that he committed an assault with a deadly 

weapon. He was placed on probation in his mother’s custody. His record on probation 

has been poor. Following his third violation of probation in October 2012, F.A. was 

committed to the county’s ranch program for 90 days. After his release from that 
2

commitment, F.A. violated his probation three more times. He remained in his mother’s 

custody. 

This is F.A.’s seventh violation of probation. He admitted the allegations. Based 

upon our review of the record, we have no reason to question the sufficiency of the 

court’s advisements, F.A.’s waivers of his rights or his admission to the charges. His 

admission appears knowing and voluntary. 

In light of F.A.’s poor performance on probation in his mother’s custody, the court 

determined that F.A.’s welfare required his removal from the family home for a period of 

detention. He was placed in juvenile hall pending a court approved placement. His 

maximum custody time was set at 144 days. 

F.A.’s counsel has represented to us that she advised F.A. of her intention to file a 

Wende brief in this case and of F.A.’s right to submit supplemental argument on his own 

behalf. He has not done so. 

There was no error. Our full review of the record discloses no issues that require 

further briefing. 

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

_________________________

Siggins, J.

We concur:

_________________________

McGuiness, P.J.

_________________________

Pollak, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                        (31,000)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,282,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   639,000
<INVENTORY>                                     77,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,000
<PP&E>                                       4,790,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,128,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,450,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,205,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,414,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,169,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,450,000
<SALES>                                      1,815,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,815,000
<CGS>                                        1,360,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,360,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               762,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             191,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (498,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (498,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (498,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1





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 Quarterly Report of General Kinetics Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
November 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry M. Heimendinger, Chief Executive 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 section13(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/   Larry M. HeimendingerLarry M. Heimendinger Chief Executive Officer January 14, 2003




23
No. 72-700.

#### Hernandez et al. *v.*Veterans’ Administration et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion to dispense with printing petition and certiorari granted. Case set for oral argument with No. 72-1297 *[Johnson*v. *Robison], supra.*
# 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 ENTITLEMENT 1

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 Compensat ion Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioners a lleged that L.G. suffered intu ssusception, bowel resection, and the sequela as a result of a rotavirus va ccine 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 reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t 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 inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he 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 Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 Definition.” Id. at 5. Respondent further agrees t hat petitioners have met the statutory requirements for entitlem ent 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
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION of CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT to SECTION 1350 of CHAPTER 63 of TITLE 18 of the UNITED STATES CODE,

as ADOPTED PURSUANT to

SECTION 906 of THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report of Frischs Restaurants, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 11, 2005 (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Registrant certifies,
pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |     |  |                           
|---------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------
|January 20, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Donald H. Walker      
|                 |  |     |  | Donald H. Walker          
|                 |  |     |  | Vice President-Finance and
|                 |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer   



This certification is being furnished
as required by Rule 13a  14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as other
otherwise stated in such filing.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Norristown Academy Charter School :

:

v. : No. 745 C.D. 2023

:

Norristown Area School District, :

Appellant :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, January 2, 2024, having considered Appellant’s application for 

reargument and Appellee’s answer in response thereto, the application is DENIED.
256 La. 849

#### Lester L. SUMMERELL v. James W. PHILLIPS.

No. 50781.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: James W. Phillips, Village St. George, Inc., Magnolia Heights, Inc. and St. George Civic Association, Inc. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 238 So.2d 786.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                           6,118
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,734
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,359)
<INVENTORY>                                     51,109
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,820
<PP&E>                                         212,932
<DEPRECIATION>                                  87,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 272,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,917
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,205
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   272,792
<SALES>                                        141,711
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,711
<CGS>                                            3,304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (327)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,049
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,337
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,658
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,896
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,762
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,762
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION of CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT to SECTION 1350 of CHAPTER 63 of TITLE 18 of the UNITED
STATES CODE,

as ADOPTED PURSUANT to

SECTION 906 of THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Quarterly Report
of Frischs Restaurants, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 18, 2005 (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Registrant certifies, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |     |  |                        
|-------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|March 10, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Craig F. Maier     
|               |  |     |  | Craig F. Maier         
|               |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a  14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that
Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as other otherwise stated in such filing.
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 148TH DISTRIC T COURT of NUECES COUNTY, GREET INGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 9th day of April,
2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Buford Randle AKA Randle B uford, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13

- 14

- 00707

- CR (Tr.Ct.No. 14

- CR

- 0561

- E)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having cons idered this cause on

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its opinion

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 9 , 2015

.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof affixed, at t he City of Edinburg, Texas this 25th day of May, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

PERNELL R. ROBERTS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No. 4D2022

- 0689

[ July 17, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Daniel Arthur Casey , Judge; L.T. Case No. 20006268CF10A

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Elizabeth Follmer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pablo Tapia, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

The defendant raises four issue s on appeal. W e find merit in only one ; as to the other three

, we affirm without discussion. As to the meritorious issue, the State has appropriately conceded error.

The defendant ’s sentence on Count 1 included a twenty

- five

- year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for actual possession or discharge of a firearm

. However, he was not charged with actual possession or discharge of the firearm, and the jury did not make a specific finding in this regard. Additionally, the judgment s for Counts 1 and 3 incorrectly contain references to section 775.087 , Florida Statutes (2020)

.

Vicarious liabili ty will not substitute for actual possession or discharge of the firearm for this sentencing requirement. Squire v. State , 278 So. 3d 153, 156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). Here, there was no allegation, evidence, or jury finding of actual possession or discharge of the firearm by the defendant. Rather, through the allegations, evidence, and jury findings, there is no question the accomplice was the party who had actual2 possession of, and discharged, the firearm.

We, therefore, reverse the imposition of the twen ty

- five

- year mandatory minimum sentence for Count 1

. As with Squire , a resentencing hearing is not required. We remand with instructions to the trial court to ministerially amend (1) the judgment as to Counts 1 and 3 to delete the references to section 775.087, Florida Statutes (2020)

, and (2) the written
sentence entere d for Count 1 to delete the twenty

- five

- year mandatory minimum sentence

.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions

.

C IKLIN , L EVINE and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.