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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 639

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide a refundable income

tax credit for the recycling of hazardous wastes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1993

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide

a refundable income tax credit for the recycling of hazardous wastes.

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

3 That (a) subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter

4 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to cred5 its allowable) is amended by inserting after section 44H

6 the following section:

7 ‘‘SEC. 44I. CREDIT FOR RECYCLING HAZARDOUS WASTES.

8 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—There shall be al9 lowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle
2

HR 639 IH

1 for the taxable year an amount equal to 2 cents for each

2 pound of qualified hazardous waste recycled by the tax3 payer during the taxable year.

4 ‘‘(b) QUALIFIED HAZARDOUS WASTE.—For purposes

5 of this section, the term ‘qualified hazardous waste’ means

6 any substance—

7 ‘‘(1) which is listed by the Environmental Pro8 tection Agency under section 3001 of the Solid

9 Waste Act, or the characteristics of which are identi10 fied under such section 3001, and

11 ‘‘(2) which is a waste product generated by the

12 taxpayer in a trade or business conducted by the

13 taxpayer.’’

14 (b)(1) Subsection (b) of section 6401 of such Code

15 (relating to excessive credits treated as overpayments) is

16 amended—

17 (A) by striking out ‘‘and 43 (relating to earned

18 income credit)’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘43 (re19 lating to earned income credit), and 44I (relating to

20 credit for recycling hazardous wastes)’’, and

21 (B) by striking out ‘‘39 and 43’’ and inserting

22 in lieu thereof ‘‘39, 43, and 44I’’.

23 (2) Paragraph (2) of section 55(f) of such Code (de24 fining regular tax) is amended by striking out ‘‘and 43’’

25 and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘43, and 44I’’.
3

HR 639 IH

1 (3) Section 56(c) of such Code is amended by striking

2 out ‘‘and 44G’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘44G, and

3 44I’’.

4 (c) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV

5 of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended

6 by inserting after section 44H the following new section:

‘‘Sec. 44I. Credit for recycling hazardous wastes.’’

7 (d) The amendments made by this section shall apply

8 to substances recycled after the date of the enactment of

9 this Act in taxable years ending after such date.

Æ
#### CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Respondent.

No. 44094.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 17, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 278 So.2d 678.

CARLTON, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N RE: SONNY DAL E MOORE,

Relator. § § § § § § No. 08-10-00177- CR

AN ORI GI

NAL PROCEEDI

NG
I N MANDA MUS

MEMORAN DUM OP INION ON P ETIT ION F OR WRIT OF M ANDAM US
Relator, Mr. Sonny Dale Moore, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus reque sting that this Court order the J udg e of the 83rd J udicial District Court of Pecos County , Texas to forwa rd his application for writ of habea s corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls pursuant to Article 11.07, § 3(c)

. Texas Courts of Appea l have no authority to issue writs of mandamus in criminal law matters rela ted to post-conviction felony convictions. See T E X .C O D E C R I M .P R O C .AN N
. art. 11.07, § 5 (Ve rnon 2005). Such authority is vested exclusively in the Texas Court of Criminal Appea ls. In re McAfe e , 53 S.W .3d 715, 718 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Be cause this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Re lator’s pe tition, i t is DENI ED.
Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

. September 29, 2010 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice
Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

.(Do Not Publish)
From the U.S. Government Accountability Office, www.gao.gov

Transcript for: High Risk Update 2023: Management of the Federal Prison
System 

Description: As part of GAO's 2023 update to our High Risk List, we
added the Bureau of Prisons for staffing issues that can affect inmate
and staff safety, and the need to better monitor rehabilitation programs
that help inmates return to the community.

Related GAO work: GAO-23-106203, High-Risk Series: Efforts Made to
Achieve Progress Need to Be Maintained and Expanded to Fully Address All
Areas

Released: April 2023

[Gretta Goodwin:] Nearly 45% of federal prisoners who complete their
time in prison are re-arrested or returned to federal prison within 3
years of their release. The Bureau of Prisons, or BOP, is charged with
providing safe and secure confinement for inmates and with reducing
recidivism by helping people successfully return to the community. While
BOP received $8.5 billion in the current fiscal year to do this, it
continues to face challenges in its efforts to manage the federal prison
system.

We have reported longstanding and increasing concerns with the federal
prison system across three areas. For 2023, we added Management of the
Federal Prison System to our High Risk List to help BOP focus its
attention on the root causes of these matters, as well as the more than
20 recommendations we've made in these areas.

First, BOP has had challenges managing its staff and resources. For
example, there have been six different individuals serving as BOP
director in the past 6 years. BOP also has increasingly used overtime to
address staff vacancies. But that's not a solution because officer
fatigue presents a serious threat to prison safety.

Second, BOP's plans to manage some of its inmate rehabilitation programs
are limited. These programs require better planning and ongoing review
for BOP to be successful in reducing some incarcerated individual
sentences through credit-earning programs and in lowering the rates of
recidivism.

Third, BOP needs to improve how it monitors and evaluates all of its
programs. Some efforts that haven't yet been evaluated include BOP's
management of disaster risk at its facilities, efforts to help
incarcerated individuals secure ID documents before they leave prison,
and the delivery of programs that may lower the risk of recidivism. In
March 2023, we recommended that BOP monitor whether it's offering enough
recidivism reduction programs.

GAO and BOP leadership recently met on these issues, and the new
Director of the Bureau of Prisons expressed her commitment to bring
sustained attention to resolving this high risk area. In addition to
sustaining leadership commitment, BOP needs to address the other four
criteria for which GAO assesses high risk areas--capacity, an action
plan, monitoring efforts and demonstrated progress.

Attention to these and other issues we've identified could ultimately
improve prison safety, reduce recidivism, and save taxpayers money.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                           FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION

                            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 First Hartford Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10Q for the quarter ending July 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Neil 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 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.


                                         _______________________________________
                                         Neil H. Ellis
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer

                                         December 16, 2002


                                       16
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**PCMALL, INC.**

 

**SUBSIDIARIESOF THE REGISTRANT**

**Asof December 31, 2009**

 

Following are thesubsidiaries of PC Mall, Inc., other than those which if considered in theaggregate as a single subsidiary would not constitute a significant subsidiary,and the state or other jurisdiction in which each subsidiary was incorporatedor organized.

 
| **SUBSIDIARIES**            | ** ** | **JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION** | ** ** |
|-----------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                  | ** ** | ** **                                  | ** ** |
| AF Services, LLC            |       | Delaware                                    |       |
| Onsale, Inc.  (1)      |       | Delaware                                    |       |
| OSRP, LLC                   |       | Delaware                                    |       |
| PC Mall  Canada, Inc.  |       | Quebec                                      |       |
| PC Mall  Gov, Inc. (2) |       | Delaware                                    |       |
| PC Mall  Sales, Inc.   |       | California                                  |       |
| Sarcom, Inc.  (3)      |       | Delaware                                    |       |

 

----

(1)  Onsale, Inc.also conducts its business under the dba MacMall and ClubMac.

(2)  On September 7,2006, PC Mall Gov, Inc., through GMR Systems, Inc., a wholly-ownedsubsidiary, acquired the products business from Government Micro Resources, Inc.As a result, PC Mall Gov also conducts its business under the dba GMRI.

(3)  Sarcom, Inc.was acquired by PC Mall, Inc. on September 17, 2007. Effective August 1,2008, Wareforce Corp. was merged with Sarcom, Inc., with Sarcom, Inc.as the surviving entity. Wareforce Corp. was previously WF Acquisition Sub, Inc.Effective December 1, 2005, CCIT, Inc. merged with WF Acquisition Sub, Inc.and the name of the combined entity was changed to Wareforce Corp. On December 15,2009, Sarcom, Inc. acquired certain assets of Data Systems Worldwide, Inc.Currently, in addition to using the name SARCOM, SARCOM also continues toconduct its business under the dbas Abreon and Data Systems Worldwide.

 

----
June 27, 1974

The Honorable Tom Hanna Criminal District Attorney Jefferson County P. 0. Box 2553 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Opinion No. H- 336 Re: Whether Commissioners Court may expend funds for creation of service pins. Dear Mr. Hanna:

You have asked whether the Commissioners Court of Jefferson County can spend county funds to purchase service pins to be awarded to employees of the county. The face ofthe pin is to consist ofa replica ofa seal embedded in the floor ofthe Jefferson County Courthouse, and you also question whether there is any law to prohibit the use of this seal.

Section 18ofArticle 5of the Constitution of Texas creates the
_ - -.. comtiissioners court and authorizes it to “exercise such powers andjurisdiction over all county business, as is conferred by this Constitution andthe laws of the State, or as may be hereafter prescribed. ”

It is nowwell established that commissioners courts can exercise only such powers as are conferred uponthem either by the Constitution or statutes. Canales v. Laughlin, 214S.W. 2d 451 (Tex. 1948).

We find no statute specifically authorizing the commissioners court to purchase and award pins such as you describe. They are authorized. however, to “fix the amount of compensation, office expense, travel expense, and all other allowances” for most county officers and employ’ees. Article 3912k, V. T. C.S.

Inour opinion a pinawarded in recognition of faithful service is ‘ jcompensation” thoygh not “salary” andit falls w$th$nthe scope ofArt,

.

p. 1550.

.

The Honorable Tom Hanna page 2 (H-336)
3912k, supra. See Attorney General Letter Advisory No. 71 (1973).

We are reinforced in this construction by the provision in Sec. 10, Article V ofthe General Appropriation Act for 1974-1975 which specifies that service pins might be presented by various state departments and agencies “as compensation. ” Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 659, p. 1786, at 2203.Since your letter indicates that the seal embedded in the floor is not an official seal, we do not thinkit would be desecrated by its inclusion as part ofthe pin.

In **our** opinion, therefore, the commissioners court of Jefferson County may create a service pin to award toits employees and may include in theface of the pin a replica ofa seal found in the floor ofthe county courthouse. : SUMMARY The commissioners court is authorized to expend - 7.. county funds to purchase a service pin tobe awarded

to county employees. The pin may include a replica ofan unofficial county seal. /+ry pub yourpt

AP ED: #- ,,kk. YOR$, First AgsH s% 

# r w DAVID M. KENDAL , ,L, Chairman General ofTexas

Opinion Committee

p. 1551
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10(b)

                           REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL

I, Sandra M. DaDalt, in my capacity as counsel to Sun Life of Canada (U.S.)
Variable Account F (the "Account") have reviewed this Post-Effective
Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account which is being filed
pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485 under the Securities Act of 1933. Based
on my review of this Post-Effective Amendment and such other material
relating to the operations of the Account as I deemed relevant, I hereby
certify as of the date of filing this Amendment, that the Post-Effective
Amendment does not contain disclosure which would render it ineligible to
become effective pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485.

I hereby consent to the filing of this representation as part of this
Post-Effective Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account.

                                              /s/ SANDRA DADALT
                                              --------------------
                                              Sandra DaDalt, Esq.

July 27, 2001
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 861 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 861

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the treatment of 
           certain buildings under the rehabilitation credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

  Mr. Pickle 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 clarify the treatment of 
           certain buildings under the rehabilitation credit.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS UNDER 
              REHABILITATION CREDIT.

    A building shall not be treated as being ineligible for the 
rehabilitation credit by reason of being relocated if the 
rehabilitation of such building at the relocated site began before the 
date of the publication of proposed Treasury Regulation 1.48-12(b)(5).

                                 <all>
```
#### JAMES P. ENNIS and others *vs.*ELIZABETH ENNIS.

Amendment of original writ allowed.

This was an action of Avaste. The process on which it was commenced was a copias, instead of summons, as provided by *Code,*293. After a vie w moved and granted,

*Robinson,*for plaintiff.

*Saulsbury,*for defendant.

*Mr. Robinson,*

for the plaintiff, moved to amend the writ, by substituting a summons for a copias which *the court allowed,*though it was resisted by *Mr. Saulsbury,*as in fact originating a suit, which was not now lawfully in court. The plaintiff had no right to bring defendant here by a copias; he could institute this suit only by summons.

Amendment alloAved.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedules contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets of Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of 9/30/99, and the consolidated statements of income, cash
flows and stockholders' equity for the 9 months ended 9/30/99, and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            5725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    59309
<ALLOWANCES>                                      4754
<INVENTORY>                                      16028
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 89992
<PP&E>                                          170979
<DEPRECIATION>                                   47857
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  180994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            31636
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         25921
<OTHER-SE>                                       70718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    180994
<SALES>                                          50233
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                282246
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   278065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1154
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  2141
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 783
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2244
<INCOME-TAX>                                       830
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4181
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1414
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 2/7/2023 | Document No. 606865 | PAGE Page 1 of 1 * PUBLIC *; 

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Intuit, Inc., ) Docket No. 9408

 a corporation, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

COLLIER.SIMON TO SEEK IN CAMERA TREATMENT OF DOCUMENTS 

On February 6, 2023, Federal Trade Commission Complaint Counsel and non-party 

Collier.Simon filed a joint motion to extend the time for Collier.Simon to seek in camera 

treatment of documents (“Motion”). Complaint Counsel and Collier.Simon seek a one-month 

extension, until March 10, 2023, citing the voluminous number of documents being collected and 

the additional time needed to identify which potential trial exhibits may require confidential 

treatment. 

Based on the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED, and it is hereby ORDERED that the 

deadline for Collier.Simon to file a motion for in camera treatment of proposed trial exhibits is 

extended to March 10, 2023, and the deadline for filing any response to Collier.Simon’s motion 

for in camera treatment is extended to March 15, 2023. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: February 7, 2023
#### Robert HULTZ et al., Appellants, v. John C. BONNER et al., Appellees.

No. 46393.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 8, 1971.

Jim Phyfer, Jackson, for appellants.

Laurel G. Weir, Philadelphia, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed,
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Metromedia International Group,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  a)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andb)
    
    the Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. Dated this 7th day of December 2004. METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC./s/ HAROLD F. PYLE, IIIHarold F. Pyle, IIIExecutive Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

PRAVCO, INC. AND NEW JERSEY 

MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE 

COMPANY 

 v. 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (MARSHALL), 

PETITION OF: EDWARD MARSHALL 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 26 EAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 15th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
257 La. 170

#### L. J. BAUDOIN, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of his Minor Daughter, Gloria Jean Baudoin v. Donald J. GOULAS et al.

No. 51016.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1970.

In re: Donald J. Goulas and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition.

Writ denied. The judgment complained of is interlocutory. The Court will not interfere with orderly proceeding in the trial court. An adequate remedy is available by appeal in the event of an adverse judgment.