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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 817 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 817

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that certain cash 
 rents will not result in the recapture of the benefits of the special 
  estate tax valuation rules for certain farm and other real property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

   Mr. Barrett of Nebraska 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 that certain cash 
 rents will not result in the recapture of the benefits of the special 
  estate tax valuation rules for certain farm and other real property.

    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 ``Farm Estate Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. NO RECAPTURE OF SPECIAL ESTATE TAX VALUATION BENEFIT WHERE 
              QUALIFIED HEIR RENTS ON NET CASH BASIS TO ANOTHER MEMBER 
              OF DECEDENT'S FAMILY.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 2032A of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax treatment of dispositions and 
failures to use for qualified use) is amended by adding at the end 
thereof the following new paragraph:
            ``(8) Exception for net cash renting to another family 
        member.--For purposes of this subsection, a qualified heir 
        shall not be treated as failing to use the qualified real 
        property in a qualified use solely because such heir rents such 
        property to another member of the decedent's family on a net 
        cash basis.''
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) The amendment made by this section shall apply with 
        respect to estates of decedents dying after December 31, 1976.
            (2) If credit or refund of any overpayment of tax resulting 
        from the amendment made by this section is barred at any time 
        before the close of the 1-year period beginning on the date of 
        the enactment of this Act by the operation of any law or rule 
        of law, credit or refund of such overpayment shall, 
        nevertheless, be allowed or made if claim therefor is filed 
        before the close of such 1-year period.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



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 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 12, 2004
(the Report), the undersigned officer of the Registrant certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |     |  |                        
|---------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|January 11, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Craig F. Maier     
|                 |  |     |  | Craig F. Maier         
|                 |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Kenneth WREAD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-313.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 16, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Ronald D. HARRIS and Sharon Lynn Fitze Harris v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 54422.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1974.

In re: Ronald D. Harris and Sharon Lynn Fitze Harris, applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 287 So. 2d 560.

Writ denied. Not considered. Not timely filed. The application was not received within the time permitted, and no U. S. postmark shows it was timely mailed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 204 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 204

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 23, 1993.
    Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R. 2446) making 
appropriations for military construction for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes, all points of 
order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 
XXI are waived. The amendments en bloc specified in the report of the Committee 
on Rules accompanying this resolution to be offered by Representative Fawell of 
Illinois or a designee may amend portions of the bill not yet read for 
amendment, shall be considered as read when offered, and shall not be subject to 
a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
Whole.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
H. Res. 145

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

March 31, 1993.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 64) setting forth the

congressional budget for the United States Government for

the fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998. All points

of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered

as read. The conference report shall be debatable for one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.

SEC. 2. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget

may submit for printing in the Congressional Record not

later than April 1, 1993, the allocations required by section

602(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The allocations so submitted shall be considered to be the allocations

otherwise required to be included in the joint explanatory
2

HRES 145 EH

statement of the managers on the conference report to accompany a concurrent resolution on the budget.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,123,300
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,276,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                       208,000
<INVENTORY>                                      1,156,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,005,000
<PP&E>                                           2,849,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,794,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,422,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              922,900
<BONDS>                                          9,365,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,811,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7,944,900)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,422,200
<SALES>                                            785,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   785,500
<CGS>                                              599,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      599,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   484,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (345,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (345,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (345,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.01


                    GENERAL EMPLOYMENT ENTERPRISES, INC.
                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONUS PLAN
                               AMENDMENT 1

The Chief Executive Officer Bonus Plan, adopted by the Company's Board of
Directors on September 24, 2001, is amended for fiscal years beginning on or
after October 1, 2006, as follows:

The following paragraph is removed:

For purposes of these calculations, the pre-bonus income of the Company means
the consolidated, fiscal year income before deduction of income taxes and
before deduction of the CEO bonus itself.  Improvement means the amount of
increase in pre-bonus income for the bonus year compared with the immediately
preceding year.  In calculating the bonus rates, pre-bonus losses and negative
improvement amounts shall be treated as "zero."

The following is added in its place:

For purposes of these calculations, consolidated pre-bonus income means the
consolidated, fiscal year income of the Company before deduction of income
taxes and before deduction of the CEO bonus itself, less an annual threshold
amount.  The Compensation and Stock Option Committee of the Company's
Board of Directors (the "Committee") shall establish the annual threshold
amount at the beginning of the bonus year.  If the consolidated pre-bonus
income for the bonus year is less than zero, it shall be treated as
"zero" for that bonus year.

For purposes of calculating the income improvement bonus rate, improvement
means the amount of increase in consolidated pre-bonus income for the bonus
year compared with the consolidated pre-bonus income for the immediately
preceding bonus year.  If the consolidated pre-bonus income for either bonus
year is less than zero, consolidated pre-bonus income shall be treated as
"zero" for that bonus year.  A decrease in consolidated pre-bonus income
shall be treated as "zero improvement" for that bonus year.

For purposes of calculating the income improvement bonus rate for the first
year that this Amendment 1 is effective, the consolidated pre-bonus income
for the preceding year shall be calculated on a pro forma basis using the
first year's threshold amount.

The Company intends that the payment will be made within 2 1/2 months of the
close of the Company's fiscal year, but in no event later than the
subsequent calendar year.  In the event that payments are not made within
2 1/2 months of the close of the Company's fiscal year, it is the Company's
intent that this Plan be construed in a manner consistent with Section 409A
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

The Company's Chief Financial Officer shall perform the annual bonus
calculations under this plan.  The Chairman of the Committee shall advise the
Chief Executive Officer in writing of the terms of the plan, including the
annual threshold amount, at the beginning of the bonus year, shall approve
the annual bonus calculations, and shall provide the Chief Executive Officer
with a written statement documenting the annual bonus calculations at the end
of the bonus year.  The Committee shall have the authority to interpret the
plan and to resolve disputes.
Table of Contents 

Volume Two 

1. General Permit Registration Forms 

A. To Install and Operate USTs 

B. Installation Checklist 

C. Operating Certificate ' 

D. To Decommission Unregistered USTs , 

E. To Modify Tank Owner, Permittee or Property Owner Information 

F. Retum to Service Application 

2. Temporary Closure Forms 

G. 30-Day Notice 

H. Request for Extension 

3. UST System Modification Forms 

I. 30-Day Notice 

J. Report and Checklist 

4. Decommissioning/Change-in-Service Forms 

K. 30-Day Notice 

L. Checklist and Site Assessment Report 

5. Cathodic Protection Test Report Form 

6. UST Service Provider and Supervisor Forms 

M. Service Provider License Application 

N. Supervisor License Application 

7. Soil Matrix Cleanup Service Provider and Supervisor Forms 

O. Licensing Exam Study Guide Order Form 

P. Service Provider License Application 

Q. Supervisor License Application 

8. Release Reporting and Cleanup Forms 

R. Petroleum Release Form 

S. Voluntary Cost Recovery Agreement 

T. Cleanup Program 20-Day Report Form 
U. Soil Matrix Rules Checklist and Score Sheet 

9. UST Cleanup Manual 

10. Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites 

11. Enforcement Guidance 

V. UST Field Citations - Guidance for Expedited Enforcement of UST 

Compliance Violations 

W. Field Citation for UST Violations 

X. UST Facility Inspection and Compliance Enforcement 

Y. Enforcement Guidance for Field Staff -

12. DEQ Laboratory Field Sampling Reference Guide 

13. Agency Quality Management Plan 

14. Quality Assurance Project Plan (Draft 6/21/10) 

15. How to Prepare for an UST Compliance Inspection 

16. UST Facility Inspection Report
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 237

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require open committee meetings and to allow the broadcasting and still photography of

any committee meetings or hearings that are open to the public.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 4, 1993

Ms. DUNN (for herself, Mr. BACCHUS of Florida, Mr. POMBO, and Mr. ZIMMER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to

require open committee meetings and to allow the broadcasting and still photography of any committee meetings

or hearings that are open to the public.

1 Resolved, That (a) the first sentence of clause 2(g)(1)

2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives

3 is amended—

4 (1) by striking ‘‘and with a majority present’’

5 and by inserting ‘‘, approved by a majority of its

6 total membership,’’ after ‘‘rollcall vote’’; and

7 (2) by inserting ‘‘because disclosure of matters

8 to be considered would endanger the national secu-
2

•HR 237 IH

1 rity, tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any

2 person, jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation,

3 or compromise a confidential source of any criminal

4 investigation’’ after ‘‘public’’ the second place it ap5 pears.

6 (b) Clause 3(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House

7 of Representatives is amended by striking ‘‘is a privilege

8 made available by the House and’’.

9 (c) Clause 3(e) of rule XI of the Rules of the House

10 of Representatives is amended to read as follows:

11 ‘‘(e) Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by

12 any committee of the House is open to the public, those

13 proceedings shall be open to television broadcast, radio

14 broadcast, and still photography, or by any of such meth15 ods of coverage. No committee or subcommittee chairman

16 may limit the number of television or still cameras below

17 2 representatives from each medium.’’.

Æ
#### Willie Mack GILBERT v. Walter B. LAGERGEN, Justice of the Peace, Second District, Pensacola, Florida.

No. 38908.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 10 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 10

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 5, 1993.
    Resolved, That at 10:30 ante meridiem on Wednesday, January 20, 1993, the 
House shall proceed to the West Front of the Capitol for the purpose of 
attending the inaugural ceremonies of the President and Vice President of the 
United States.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
## Meeting Minutes Memorandum

TO: EPA Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0895

FROM: Conrad Chin , EPA/SPPD

DATE: March 9 , 2012

SUBJECT: Meeting with Representatives from Nickel Producers Environmental Research

Association (NIPERA) on March 9 , 2012

.

I. Participants

NIPERA Representatives : Christian Richter

, Hudson Bates

, Neil King

EPA Representatives : Chuck French, Conrad Chin, Darcie Smith, Ines Pagan

EPA Representatives calling in : George Woodall , Sarah Mazur, Yolanda Sanchez, Jim Ball

I I

. Summary of Discussion

NIPERA reiterated points raised in their comment letter dated January 30, 2012, regarding the

suitability of the URE value for nickel and potential alternatives. NIPERA also provided a hand

out and a Powerpoint presentation at the meeting , which are attached

.

Attachments:

1) NIPERA, “Nickel Producing Industry Position on the USEPA Nickel URE”

2) NIPERA, “Ferroallo ys Production NESHAP: URE for Nickel Compounds Points for

Discussion
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the period ended December 31, 2002 (the "Report") of Technology Visions Group,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), I, James B. Lahey, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted 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.


Dated: April 7, 2003                        /s/  James B. Lahey
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:  James B. Lahey
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### Alfred Dwight FEATHERSTONE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43139.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 26, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 3, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
# L_2004343EN.01S00301.xml

| 19.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 343/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 343/s3

---

1 November 2004 — New version of EUR-Lex!

europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/

The new site incorporates the Celex service and provides free and easy access in 20 languages to the largest documentary database on EU law.

---
Exhibit 15.1         **Consent of    Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     To the Supervisory Board and Shareholders of ASML Holding N.V.:     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following    Registration Statements on    Form S-8    (Nos.    333-13332,333-109154,333-105600,333-116337,333-126340,333-136362,333-141125,333-142254,333-144356    and    333-147128)    of our report dated January 25, 2008, relating to the    financial statements of ASML Holding N.V. and the effectiveness    of ASML Holding N.V.’s internal control over financial    reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on    Form 20-F    of ASML Holding N.V. for the year ended December 31, 2007.  /s/    Deloitte Accountants B.V.    Eindhoven, The Netherlands  January 25,    2008 ASML ANNUAL REPORT 2007
#### JOHN WEST, appellant, d. b. *vs.*JOHN HOSEA, respondent, p. b.

A promise made to a constable to pay the amount of an execution in his hands, if he will release his levy, is a promise on a good consideration, and the constable may recover upon it.

The plaintiff in the execution cannot support an action on such promise.

Such a promise by an administrator, though for the benefit of the estate, is a personal , obligation.

This was an appeal from the judgment of C. C. Windsor, Esq.

The first count was special, alledging that Hosea had recovered a judgment against George Culver, before Justice Hearn, and issued execution to constable Burton; and that West, who was the administrator of Culver, promised to pay the debt, if he was allowed to sell the goods. The second count was on a promise to the constable to pay the execution. This case was proved.

*Mr. Saulsbury,*for defendant below, moved a nonsuit, on the following grounds:—

1. The suit should have been against West, as administrator of Culver, as the goods released were goods of the deceased.

2. The promise was one to answer for the default of another, and should be in writing.

3. If the promise was to pay Hosea, it was without consideration, as it was not proved that his execution was levied.

*Mr.*Layton, contra.

1. Hosea could not have sued West, as the administrator of Culver; it was a personal undertaking. He had already a judgment that hound Culver’s property through the execution.

2. This promise is not within the statute of frauds. It was not a promise to answer for the debt of another, but to pay a debt due from West himself, as administrator of Culver.

3. The promise to pay Hosea had the consideration of a release of the goods, then in Burton’s hands, under Culver’s execution.

*Mr. Saulsbury*replied.

*The*Court.

1. The suit was not against West, as administrator, and could not be. It was upon a promise by West personally, and not as administrator.

2. Neither is this a promise to answer for the default of another. The promise was not to Hosea to pay the debt or default of another; *233but a promise to Burton to indemnify him against Hosea’s claim; or to pay the amount of Hosea’s execution.

Layton,, for plaintiff.

Salisbury, for defendant.

3. But such a promise, in either aspect of it, was not a promise which Hosea could sue upon. The suit must be in Burton’s name, though the money, if recovered, would be for the use of Hosea; a recovery in this action would not protect West from a suit by Burton, nor Burton from a suit by Hosea.

The plaintiff was nonsuited.