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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3373

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against

the estate tax for certain transfers of real property for conservation purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 26, 1993

Mr. ZIMMER (for himself, Mr. SAXTON, and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut)

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 allow a

credit against the estate tax for certain transfers of

real property for conservation purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Open Space

5 Acquisition and Preservation Act of 1993’’.
2

HR 3373 IH

1 SEC. 2. ESTATE TAX CREDIT FOR CERTAIN TRANSFERS OF

2 REAL PROPERTY FOR CONSERVATION PUR3 POSES.

4 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Part II of subchapter A of

5 chapter 11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

6 to credits against tax) is amended by adding at the end

7 thereof the following new section:

8 ‘‘SEC. 2017. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN TRANSFERS OF REAL

9 PROPERTY FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES.

10 ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—If the executor makes a

11 qualified conservation transfer of any real property (or in12 terest therein), there shall be allowed as a credit against

13 the tax imposed by section 2001 with respect to the estate

14 of the decedent an amount equal to the value (as deter15 mined under this chapter with respect to the estate of the

16 decedent) of such property (or interest therein).

17 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—The amount allowed as a credit

18 under subsection (a) shall not exceed the amount of the

19 tax imposed by section 2001 with respect to the estate

20 of the decedent, reduced by the amount equal to the value

21 (as determined under this chapter with respect to the es22 tate of the decedent) of such property (or interest therein).

23 ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED CONSERVATION TRANSFER.—For

24 the purposes of this section, the term ‘qualified conserva25 tion transfer’ means any transfer of any real property in-
3

HR 3373 IH

1 cluded in the gross estate of the decedent (or any interest

2 therein) if—

3 ‘‘(1) such transfer is to an agency of the United

4 States,

5 ‘‘(2) such transfer is accepted by such agency

6 for use exclusively for conservation purposes (as de7 fined in section 170(h)), and

8 ‘‘(3) such transfer is made without any pay9 ment or reimbursement from such agency.

10 ‘‘(d) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—No deduction

11 shall be allowed under this chapter with respect to any

12 transfer for which the estate claims the benefits of this

13 section.’’

14 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

15 for subchapter C of chapter 11 of such Code is amended

16 by adding at the end thereof the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 2017. Credit for certain transfers of real property for conservation purposes.’’

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

18 this section shall apply to transfers made after the date

19 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
August 10, 2013

  
 

  
Xunjin Hua is lending Innovative Designs, Inc the amount of $25,000 Dollars, for a period of 6 months, at an interest rate of 10% for six months. Repayment of $27,500 interest included will be made by February 10, 2014. In addition, lender will receive 5,000 shares of IVDN stock as additional interest.

  
 

  	
  
/s/ Xunjin Hua

	
  
 


	
  
Xunjin Hua

	
  
 


	
  
 

	
  
 


	
  
/s/ Joseph Riccelli

	
  
 


	
  
Joseph Riccelli

	
  
 


	
  
 

	
  
 


	
  
/s/ Gregory P. Domian

	
  
 


	
  
(Witness)
#### Kenneth Ray DUCKSWORTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-677.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                              
                        
<MULTIPLIER>                               1
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                    144,447
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             384,756
<ALLOWANCES>                               26,800
<INVENTORY>                               318,704
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,070,130
<PP&E>                                  1,288,481
<DEPRECIATION>                            597,666
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          3,806,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,785,759
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                    3,156
<OTHER-SE>                             10,230,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            3,806,348
<SALES>                                 3,337,935
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        3,337,935
<CGS>                                   2,409,771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           2,278,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          9,095
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (1,347,684)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (1,347,684)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                           (1,347,684)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: C Lugrand Dawkins Enterprises, LLC v. Wanderstay Hotels 

LLC DBA Wanderlust Houston

Appellate case number: 01-18-00909-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-39075

Trial court: 189th District Court of Harris County

Appellee, Wanderstay Hotels LLC DBA Wanderlust Houston, has filed a motion 

to dismiss the appeal, “affirm the trial court’s judgment and/or for [d]amages for 

[f]rivolous appeal,” asserting that a reporter’s record has not been timely filed in the 

appeal. A reporter’s record was filed in this Court on November 27, 2018. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 35.1(b), 35.3(c). The motion is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Terry Jennings___

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: _December 13, 2018___
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3357 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3357

To prohibit travel by Members, officers, and employees of the House of 
                  Representatives at lobbyist expense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 26, 1993

   Mr. Goss introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit travel by Members, officers, and employees of the House of 
                  Representatives at lobbyist expense.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF TRAVEL BY MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES OF 
              THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT LOBBYIST EXPENSE.

    (a) In General.--A Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
Representatives may not perform any travel at the expense of a person 
who is required to register under section 308 of the Federal Regulation 
of Lobbying Act (2 U.S.C. 267).
    (b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``Member of the 
House of Representatives'' means a Representative in, or a Delegate or 
Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

                                 <all>
```
UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

____________________________________ ) SAMAR CHATTERJ EE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Ci vi l A cti onNo. 07 -21 72 (P L F) ) U . S
. C O N S U L G E N E RA L e t al
. , ) ) De fe nd ants . ) ____________________________________)

FI NAL ORDER For the re asons stated in the a ccompa nying me morandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jur isdiction. This is a final, appe alable or der. See Fe d. R. App. P. 4. /s/____________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: August 27, 2009
#### Michael F. McENANEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-464.

*District*Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 14, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 228 So.2d 446.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 10516]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Chagall, Lissitzky, Malevich: The Russian Avant Garde in Vitebsk, 1918-1922,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Jewish Museum, New York, New York, from on or about September 14, 2018, until on or about January 6, 2019, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Marie Therese Porter Royce,

Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2018-18175 Filed 8-22-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### David Emanuel RAHMING, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 42977.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 18, 1973.

Charles W. Musgrove, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

McCAIN, Justice.

On this petition for writ of certiorari, we have for review an order of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, which conflicts with the decision of this Court in State v. Wooden, 246 So.2d 75S (Fla.1971). We have jurisdiction over the cause pursuant to Fla.Const. Article V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A.

By petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, petitioner sought delayed appellate review of his conviction, alleging denial of his right to appeal by state action. Essentially, petitioner asserted that he was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Palm Beach County of conspiracy to commit a felony and of robbery; judgment and sentence' were imposed on September 24, 1971. He asserts that at the time of trial and for appeal purposes he was represented by appointed counsel. No motion for new trial was filed by appointed counsel, nor did counsel file notice of appeal in the district court. However, prior to his conviction, petitioner twice requested his counsel to appeal the decision of the trial court. The two letters requesting such action are made a part of the record below.

Finally, on November 4, 1971, petitioner filed his own notice of appeal in the district court; inasmuch as this appeal was untimely filed it was dismissed.

When petitioner subsequently filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court, alleging the matters above set forth, the petition was denied in a signed order. Petitioner now seeks conflict certiorari here. We find conflict and reverse.

In State v. Wooden, supra, this Court held that in light of Anders v. Cali*475fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Baggett v. Wainwright, 229 So.2d 239 (Fla.1969), appointed counsel is required to appeal a case whether or not it is meritorious in his view. Since it appears from the petition and exhibits filed below that petitioner has made a prima facie showing of frustrated appeal through state action, we hold that the district court erred in denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus without requiring a return by the State. Moreover, if, on the State’s return, petitioner’s recital of facts proves to be accurate, then petitioner will be entitled to delayed appellate review by the district court.

Accordingly, the order of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, is quashed and the cause remanded with directions that the district court require the State to respond and for such further action as may be required.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN and DEKLE, JJ, concur.
Exhibit 12

CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON (USA), INC.  STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  (Unaudited)  (In millions, except for ratio)

|                                   |                                                              | For the Year Ended December 31,               
|---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------
|
|Earnings:                          |                                                              |                                               
|                                   | Income (loss) before provision for income taxes(1)           |                                               
|Add: Fixed Charges                 |                                                              |                                               
|                                   | Interest expense (gross)                                     |                                               
|                                   | Interest factor in rents                                     |                                               
|                                   |                                                              |                                               
|                                   |                                                              | Total fixed charges from continuing operations
|                                   |                                                              |                                               
|                                   | Earnings before fixed charges and provision for income taxes |                                               
|                                   |                                                              |                                               
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |                                                              |                                               

---

---

QuickLinks
Santa Barb ara County APCD
#### E. G. COOK, a/k/a Ellis G. Cook, Appellant, v. WALKER CHEMICAL & EXTERMINATING COMPANY, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 1104.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

May 26, 1967.

David L. McCain, of Carlton McCain Brennan & McAliley, Fort Pierce, for appellant.

E. Paul Brigman, Jr., Orlando, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of Capelouto v. Orkin Exterminating Co. of Florida, Fla. 1966, 183 So.2d 532; Beery v. Plastridge Agency, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 332; Atlas Travel Service v. Morelly, Fla.App. 1957, 98 So.2d 816; Accord: Standard Newspapers, Inc. v. Woods, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 397; Section 542.12(2), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.

Affirmed.

ANDREWS, Acting C. J., CROSS, J., and GONZALEZ, JOSE A., JR., Associate Judge, concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3380 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3380

    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for 
consideration of the ability of an applicant for a stormwater permit to 
                      pay, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 27, 1993

Mr. Bonilla (for himself, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Tejeda, Mr. Pete 
  Geren of Texas, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Lightfoot, Mr. Armey, Ms. Pryce of 
  Ohio, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Emerson, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. 
    McInnis, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Pombo, and Mr. Calvert) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and 
                             Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide for 
consideration of the ability of an applicant for a stormwater permit to 
                      pay, 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. ABILITY TO PAY LIMITATION.

    Section 402(p) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1342 (p)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) Consideration of ability of permittee to pay.--In 
        issuing a permit for discharges from municipal storm sewers 
        under this section and in determining the requirements, terms, 
        and conditions to be applicable under such a permit, the 
        Administrator or the State (in the case of a permit program 
        approved under this section) shall consider the ability of the 
        applicant to pay to meet such requirements, terms, and 
        conditions and the environmental impact of issuance of such 
        permit at the site of the discharge.''.

                                 <all>
```
steam

_ record - Fw: Re: Mississippi Power Compan y - ICR Extension Request

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 07/02/2010 08:25PM -----

To: "Berry, Charles Rick (MPC )" <CRBERRY@southernco.com> From: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US Date: 07/02/2010 08:11PM Subject: Re: Mississippi Power Company - ICR Extension Request
Greetings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your exte nsion request for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-bycase basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date of y our questionnaire unless and until EPA a g rees to the extension and establishes a new date.
Sincerely, From: <Alicea.Jezebele @ epamail.epa. g ov> To: <steam_record@erg.com> Date: 7/2/2010 7:26 PM Sub j ect: Fw: Re: Mississippi Power Company - ICR Extension Reques t Pa g e 1 of 3

3/21/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C2E3D5FD

...-----"Berry, Charles Rick (MPC)" <C RBERRY@southernco.c om> wrote: -----

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Berry, Charles Rick (M PC)" <CRBERRY@southernco.com> Date: 06/29/2010 06:28PM cc: "Hill, Flinda R." <FRHILL@southernco.com >, "Hill, Donna B." <DBHILL@southernco.com> Subject: Mississippi Power Co mpany - ICR Extension Request

Ms. Alicea, Please find attached a request for a deadline extension for the completion and submittal of the Steam Electric Guidelines Information Collection Request for Mississippi Power. I trust you will find it complete as well as compelling. Feel free to contact us should you require additional information.

Rick Berry Manager, Environmental Quality Mississippi Power Company 10406 Lorraine Road P.O. Box 4079 Gulfport, Mississippi 39502-4097 Tel: 228.897.6420 Pa g e 2 of 3

3/21/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C2E3D5FD

...[attachment "DOC001.pdf" removed by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US] Pa g e 3 of 3

3/21/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C2E3D5FD

...