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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4882 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat amounts paid for 

private umbilical cord blood or umbilical cord tissue, or placental blood 

or placental tissue, banking services as medical care expenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2018 

Mr. PAULSEN (for himself and Mr. KIND) 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 treat 

amounts paid for private umbilical cord blood or umbilical cord tissue, or placental blood or placental tissue, 

banking services as medical care expenses. 

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 ‘‘Family Cord Blood 

5 Banking Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4882 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMOUNTS PAID FOR PRIVATE UMBILICAL CORD 

2 BLOOD OR UMBILICAL CORD TISSUE, OR PLA3 CENTAL BLOOD OR PLACENTAL TISSUE, 

4 BANKING SERVICES TREATED AS MEDICAL 

5 CARE EXPENSES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 213(d) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining medical 

8 care) is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subpara9 graph (C), by striking the period at the end of subpara10 graph (D) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by inserting after sub11 paragraph (D) the following new subparagraph: 

12 ‘‘(E) for private umbilical cord blood or 

13 umbilical cord tissue, or placental blood or pla14 cental tissue, banking services provided by any 

15 accredited bank which is in compliance with the 

16 regulations under section 361 of the Public 

17 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264).’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

20 December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
Certificate of Formation of Carrizo (Eagle Ford) LLC



 Exhibit 4.4 
 State of Delaware 
 Secretary of State 

Division of Corporations 
 Delivered 05:56 PM 06/27/2011 
 FILED 05:38 PM 06/27/2011 

SRV 110767047 – 5002943 FILE 
 CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION 
 OF 

CARRIZO (EAGLE FORD) LLC 
 This Certificate of Formation of Carrizo (Eagle Ford) LLC (the “Company”) is being executed and filed by the undersigned authorized person for the purpose of forming a limited liability company
under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act. 
 Article One 

The name of the Company is Carrizo (Eagle Ford) LLC. 
 Article Two 
 The address of the registered office of the Company in the
State of Delaware is 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware 19801, and the Company’s registered agent at that address is The Corporation Trust Company. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation this 27th day of June, 2011. 

 

			
	By:	 	/s/ Marcus Bolinder
		 	 Marcus Bolinder
 Authorized
Person
Exhibit 32.1



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 Colony RIH Holdings, Inc. and Resorts International Hotel and Casino, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Audrey S. Oswell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ AUDREY S. OSWELL                 
|Audrey S. Oswell                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer



May
13, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Moore, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.), rendered June 1, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contention that the court failed to consider his family history in sentencing him as a persistent felony offender is without merit. The record clearly indicates that the court properly took into account all relevant factors and evidence required by CPL 400.20 *(see, People v Oliver,*96 AD2d 1104, *affd*63 NY2d 973). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### STEINWAY et al. v. GRIFFITH CONSOLIDATED THEATRES, Inc., et al.

No. 35631.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

May 18, 1954.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1954.

Application for Leave to File Second Petition for Rehearing Denied Sept. 14, 1954.

*880McNeill & McNeill, Spillers & Spillers, Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.

Richardson,, Cochran, Dudley, Fowler & Rucks, R. D. Hudson, Tulsa, and Wayne W. Bayless, Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

Except that this case is prosecuted for the use and benefit of the defendant Ritz Theatre, Inc., rather than Majestic Amusement Company, it is identical, as to parties, facts, and law, to cause Number 35,630, 273 P.2d 872, this day decided. Therefore, the opinion in said cause Number 35,630 is hereby adopted as the opinión herein.

Judgment is affirmed.

HALLEY, ,'C. J., JOHNSON, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, ARNOLD, O’NEAL, WILLIAMS and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur. :
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40791 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. SERGIO GUZMAN-VALDEZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-353-ALL
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * SergioGuzman-Valdez pleaded guilty and was convicted ofimportation of cocaine. The district court sentenced him to 70 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Guzman-Valdez argues that he was wrongly denied a downward adjustment for his minor or minimal role in the offense. The advisory Sentencing Guidelines provide for a reduction in the base offense level of a “minor” or a “minimal” participant. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. To merit a reduction United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 19, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-40791

2 under § 3B1.2, the defendant must have been “substantially less culpable” than the average participant. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(A)). The role of a defendant in the offense is a factual determination that we review for clear error. U nited States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir. 2005). The presentence report (PSR) indicates that Guzman-Valdez’scar crossed into Mexico nine times in just over two months. On one of these occasions Guzman-Valdez was found to have $1450 hidden in the air vent ofhis car. The PSR also indicates that Guzman-Valdez had a history of unemployment. Guzman-Valdez has not shown that his participation in the offense was “peripheral to the advancement of the illicit activity” or that it was not “critical to the offense,” given that he directly transported a sizable load of cocaine and
was found with a large sum of money concealed in his car’s air vent on a prior occasion. Villanueva, 408 F.3d at 204; United Statesv. Tremelling, 43 F.3d 148, 153 (5th Cir. 1995). Guzman-Valdez has not demonstrated that the district court’s denial of a role adjustment was clearly erroneous. AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
 Dated: March 31, 2008
    /s/ Akio AriuraAkio AriuraChief Financial Officer
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 94-41289 Conference Calendar

__________________ GERALD AHEARN ET AL., Plaintiffs, versus FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees, versus WALI MUHAMMED, Movant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:93 CV 526

- - - - - - - - - - June 28, 1995

Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Wali Muhammed was not entitled to intervene in this suit as of right nor did the district court clearly abuse its discretion by denying Muhammed's motion for permissive intervention because Muhammed made no showing that his interests were not adequately protected. Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n , 806No. 94-41289 -2-
F.2d 1285, 1289, (5th Cir.) cert. denied , 484 U.S. 817 (1987) (citation omitted). As the denial of Muhammed's motion for permissive intervention was within the discretion of the district court, this court lacks jurisdiction over Muhammed's appeal. Woolen v. Surtran Taxicabs, Inc. , 684 F.2d 324, 331 (5th Cir. 1982). Therefore, Muhammed's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Draft RTC Document for Area Source Boilers

Mary Johnson to

:

Higgins, Cortney 12/19/2012 12:30 PM 

Cc

:

RobertJ Wayland, Jim Eddinger, Jonathan Averback, Thomas Gillis

From: Mary Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, 

Jonathan Averback/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cortney,

Attached is the current draft Response-to-Comment document for Area Source Boilers. We are still in the 

process of editing some of the responses but I wanted to provide you with a version now and will provide 

you with an updated version later today.

Thanks.

Mary

Area Boiler Comment Response Document_12_19_2012.docx 

Mary Johnson

Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Mail Code D 243-01

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-5025

Fax: (919) 541-5450
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subscription (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Vialta, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

      (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2004 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the financial
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

      (2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

Dated: November 12, 2004                By: /s/ William M. Scharninghausen
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            William M. Scharninghausen
                                            Chief Financial Officer
#### DARDANELLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 et al., Appellants, v. CITY NATIONAL BANK et al.

No. 11510.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

June 5, 1939.

Parker Parker, of Dardanelle, Ark., for appellants.

James B. McDonough, of Fort Smith,. Ark., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Petition of appellants for allowance of appeal from United States District Court denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4864 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4864

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to penalize unlawful flight to 
             avoid prosecution into or from Indian country.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 2018

 Mrs. Noem (for herself and Mr. Gowdy) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition 
to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to penalize unlawful flight to 
             avoid prosecution into or from Indian country.

    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 ``No Haven for Dangerous Fugitives Act 
of 2018''.

SEC. 2. FLIGHT TO AVOID PROSECUTION OR GIVING TESTIMONY.

    Section 1073 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after ``Whoever moves or travels in interstate or foreign 
commerce'' the following: ``or is present within the special maritime 
and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves 
Indian country (as such term is defined in section 1151),''.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that Federal, State, and local 
governments should respect Tribal sovereignty at all times, including 
by engaging in all reasonable efforts to reach extradition agreements 
with Indian Tribes.
                                 <all>
```
February 29, 2016 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue S.W. 

Wilburn Wright Bldg.- Suite 2WIOOO 

Washington, DC 20591 

-., r: 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk AGC-4 30 

Re: FAA File No. 2013S0700189 

Notice of Appearance 

Dear Cleric: 

!.Frost-n ill6wn loddu~ ATTORNEYS 

Winston E Miller 

Member 

502.568.0296 (t) 

502.581.1087 (f) 

wmiller@fbtlaw.com 

VIA UPS Overnight and Regular U.S. Mail 

\=\)(\\2): 1lo ·· Yd. lo \ 

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. 13.204, the undersigned hereby gives notice of appearance 

regarding the above-matter on behalf of United Parcel Service, Inc. (an Ohio Corporation, "UPS 

Ground") and United Parcel Service Co. (a Delaware Corporation, "UPS Airlines"). All 

communications regarding this matter should be directed to: 

Winston E. Miller 

Frost Brown Todd LLC 

400 West Market Street, 3 2nd Fl. 

Louisville, KY 40202 

502-568-0296 

502-581-1087 (Fax) 

wmiller@futlaw.com 

Please let me know if any additional information is needed. 

Sincerely, 

Winston E. Miller 

Counsel for United Parcel Service, Inc. 

and United Parcel Service Co. 

400 West Market Street I 32nd Floor I Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3363 I 502.589.5400 I frostbrowntodd.com 

Offices in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia 
Federal Aviation Administration 

Page 2 

February 29, 2016 

cc: James H. Dunfee, Jr. 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Notice of Appearance has been sent via UPS overnight 

delivery, this 29'h day of February 2016. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Bldg.- Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk (AGC-430) 

and a copy by certified mail- return receipt requested and regular U.S. mail to: 

James H. Dunfee, Jr. 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

OOOOOXA.0624664 4838-2395-0126vl 

Counsel for United Parcel Service, In"2: 

and United Parcel Service Co. 

400 West Market Street 1 32nd Floor I Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3363 I 502.589.5400 I frostbrowntodd.com 

Offices in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1320
                        GRANT TRADE WITH RUSSIA

  (Mr. REICHERT asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in favor today of granting 
Russia permanent normal trade relations. I would like to emphasize this 
will hold only benefits for the United States. There is no downside for 
us unless we fail to act.
  While we wait to consider this legislation, our global competitors 
are racing ahead, taking advantage of their new access to Russian 
markets. U.S. exports to Russia could double in the next 5 years. 
Currently exports to Russia support over 1,400 jobs in my State. 
Passing this bill will increase America's export goods and services 
substantially, and this growth and trade will serve as a no-cost job 
creator.
  If we fail to act, U.S. companies, farmers, and workers will not 
receive the benefits of Russia's membership, nor will the U.S. 
Government have authority to hold Russia accountable under WTO rules.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that we can come together and pass 
this legislation. Grant Russia permanent normal trade relations.

                          ____________________
```
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In re Thomas E. Stafford, * Original Mandamus Proceeding

No. 11

- 18

- 00180

- CR * July 19, 2018

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

This court has considered Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and

concludes that the writ of mandamus should be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction . Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the petition

for writ of mandamus is dismissed.
#### HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David F. TOWNSEND, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-5635

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 27, 1994.

*92Nancy C. Marshall, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, for appellant.

David F. Townsend, pro se.

Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff, Home Insurance Company (“Home”), filed this action on the basis of diversity of citizenship, seeking rescission of professional liability policies on the ground that the defendant, attorney David Townsend, had made misrepresentations in his application. The company moved for summary judgment. The district court construed the suit as one for declaratory judgment, denied summary judgment, and exercised its perceived discretion to deny declaratory relief. We vacate and remand.1

In its Memorandum Ruling, the district court stated that “Home applied to this court for declaratory relief on the issue of coverage and duty to defend.” This is error. Home plainly asks for rescission: Count I of the complaint is entitled “Rescission of the 1990 Policy,” and Count II is entitled “Rescission of the 1992 Policy.” As its jurisdictional basis, Home mentions only the diversity statute, not the declaratory judgment statute. With its complaint, Home tenders its received premiums into the court registry and asks that the policies “should be rescinded and should be held null and void ab initio.”

The only mention of any term derived from the root word “declare” is in the prayer, wherein Home “further prays that after due proceedings are had that there be judgment herein in favor of [Home], and against Townsend, *declaring*[the policies] rescinded and made null and void ab initio, ... and for all equitable and general relief.” (Emphasis added.) Absolutely no mention is made of coverage or duty to defend.

Read in the context of the entire complaint, the word “declaring” cannot reasonably be interpreted as transforming this case from a diversity action to rescind into a declaratory judgment action. Accordingly, any deference, in the nature of abuse of discretion, accorded a district court in deciding whether to entertain a declaratory judgment action does not pertain here.

Home asks that we decide the motion for summary judgment on appeal, in the first instance. We conclude, however, that, although determination of the motion may involve purely questions of law, the district court should have the opportunity to rule, unburdened by any misconception that Home seeks declaratory relief. We also observe that the district court may not have ruled on certain motions to intervene; we leave it to that court to decide those matters, as it deems appropriate.

The judgment is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings.

1

. The appellee has not filed a brief on appeal, despite notice and warning from the clerk.
#### Corinn M. Pravato et al., Respondents, v Joseph Pravato, Appellant.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated December 8, 1989, which denied his motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) is granted.

The infant plaintiff was injured when she fell or was thrown from a pony that the defendant, her father, had brought her to a stable to ride. Although the plaintiffs here assert that the defendant violated a duty ordinarily owed independently of the parent-child relationship *(see, Holodook v Spencer,*36 NY2d 35, 50), we discern no facts within the four corners of the complaint which support any cause of action *(see, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275) other than one premised on negligent parental supervision, a cause of action not cognizable in New York *(Holodook v Spencer, supra; Parsons v Wham-O, Inc.,*150 AD2d 435, 436; *McGill v McGill,*127 AD2d 996). The defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, including the derivative cause of action interposed on behalf of the plaintiff mother, should have been granted *(see, McGill v McGill, supra; see also, Karlsons v Guerinot,*57 AD2d 73, 81). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.