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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5719 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5719

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
                   allowed for student loan interest.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2012

  Mr. Rangel (for himself, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Lewis of 
Georgia, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Neal, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Gerlach, 
 and Mr. Blumenauer) 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 increase the deduction 
                   allowed for student loan interest.

    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 ``Student Loan Interest Deduction Act 
of 2012''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR STUDENT LOAN INTEREST.

    (a) Increase in Dollar Limitation and Repeal of Limitation Based on 
Income.--Subsection (b) of section 221 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Maximum Deduction.--The deduction allowed by subsection (a) 
for the taxable year shall not exceed $5,000 ($10,000 in the case of a 
joint return).''.
    (b) Repeal of the Limitation on the Period the Deduction Is Allowed 
Made Permanent.--Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to the amendments made by 
section 412 of such Act.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 221 of such Code is amended by 
striking subsections (e) and (f) (relating to special rules and 
inflation adjustments, respectively) and inserting the following new 
subsection:
    ``(e) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction shall be allowed 
under this section for any amount for which a deduction is allowable 
under any other provision of this chapter.''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|No chart available.                                                                  
|No chart available.                                                                  
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|Alabama (with State Offshore) Shale Proved Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
RB

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0066

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL JOSEPH MCCOY,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, and

good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and

including April 6, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 4 2021

03/04/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0066
Exhibit 32.02

DEER VALLEY CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE
15d-14(b) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 of Deer Valley Corporation (the Company), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John S. Lawler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ John S. Lawler                                   |  | 
|John S. Lawler                                       |  | 
|Chief Financial Officer                              |  | 
|(Principal Financial Officer and Accounting Officer) |  | 
|May 10, 2011                                         |  |
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 195 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25797]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3300]


State of Florida; and Contiguous Counties in Georgia

    Leon County and the contiguous counties of Gadsden, Jefferson, 
Liberty, and Wakulla in the State of Florida, and Grady and Thomas 
Counties in the State of Georgia constitute a disaster area due to 
damages from heavy rains and flooding caused by Tropical Storm Helene 
that occurred September 22-24, 2000. Applications for loans for 
physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the 
close of business on November 27, 2000 and for economic injury until 
the close of business on June 28, 2001 at the address listed below or 
other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, 
Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300,Atlanta, GA 
30308.
    The interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners with credit available elsewhere.................      7.375
  Homeowners without credit available elsewhere..............      3.687
  Businesses with credit available elsewhere.................      8.000
  Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit           4.000
   available elsewhere.......................................
  Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit          6.750
   available elsewhere.......................................
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without           4.000
   credit available elsewhere................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The numbers assigned to this disaster for physical damages are 
330006 for Florida and 330106 for Georgia. For economic injury the 
numbers are 9J1600 for Florida and 9J1700 for Georgia.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: September 28, 2000.
Aida Alvarez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-25797 Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-U
#### Alfonso D. Bax, Respondent, *v.*Harold J. Harnett et al., Appellants.

County Court, Niagara County,

December 9, 1957.

*111
      *Herald P. Farrmger, Jr.,*for appellants.

*William L. Kellick, Jr.,*for respondent.

Frank J. Kronenberg, J.

Defendants made timely service of a notice of appeal from a judgment of the Niagara Falls City Court entered by Judge Thomas B. Lee on April 15,1957. However, they failed to perfect the appeal by timely payment of costs as required by section 430 of the Justice Court Act.

Since an appeal was taken by service of notice within 20 days pursuant to section 428 of said act, the County Court has jurisdiction under section 433 to permit in its discretion, perfecting of the appeal and amendment of the notice of appeal. *(Desabrais*v. *Aikens,*283 App. Div. 909.)

Defendants cross-move for permission to amend the notice of appeal to demand a trial *de novo*and for allowance of tardy filing of the undertaking required by section 443. The court has discretion to permit late filing of the undertaking *(Brown*v. *Gladstone,*178 Misc. 441), and, as noted above, section 433 confers discretion to allow amendment of the notice.

In passing on this matter the court has borne in mind that the numerous City Courts in this State are governed as to procedure by a bewildering potpourri of general statutes, special statutes, and city charters. Ascertaining the procedure in any particular City Court is frequently a problem of no little complexity. Consequently it behooves an attorney venturing into the court of a strange city, to reconnoiter thoroughly the various laws that might apply.

In the interests of justice, this court denies plaintiff’s motion ■to dismiss the appeal and grants defendants’ motion to amend the notice of appeal to demand a trial *de novo.*The late payment of costs and filing of the undertaking is allowed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Walter J. Miller, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of intentional murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [2]). He contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because, on the issue of his competency to stand trial, he was not examined by two psychiatrists. CPL 730.20 (1), as it was in effect at the time of the order of examination,* provided in part, "Upon receipt of an examination order, the director must designate two qualified psychiatrists, of whom he may be one, to examine the defendant to determine if he is an incapacitated person, except that if the director is of the opinion that the defendant may be mentally defective, he may designate one qualified psychiatrist and one certified psychologist to examine the defendant.” In defendant’s view, his psychiatric examination was defective because the director of the mental health hospital, who was one of the examiners, was a certified psychologist, not a psychiatrist. The record reveals, however, that a question arose whether defendant was mentally defective, and, in the absence of any contrary evidence, we presume that the statutory exception permitting examination by a certified psychologist applied and that the examination complied with the statute *(see, People v Phelps,*147 AD2d 946, *affd*74 NY2d 919).

Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to deliver a "moral certainty” instruction to the jury lacks merit. The "moral certainty” standard does not apply where, as here, both direct and circumstantial evidence are presented *(People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 379-380).

The trial court erred in questioning prospective jurors concerning their reaction should the defendant choose not to testify or to present evidence on his behalf *(see, People v Koberstein,*66 NY2d 989, 990). In light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, we find the error to be harmless *(see, People v Koberstein, supra,*at 991).

We have reviewed defendant’s other claims of error and find *959them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Orleans County Court, Miles, J.—murder, second degree.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

*

 The statute has since been amended to authorize the director to appoint two "psychiatric examiners”, of whom the director may be one. A "psychiatric examiner” is defined as a qualified psychiatrist or a certified psychologist.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 559 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an additional 

year for the extension of the placed in service date for the low-income 

housing credit rules applicable to the GO Zone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 8, 2011 

Mr. RICHMOND (for himself and Mr. BOUSTANY) 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 

an additional year for the extension of the placed in 

service date for the low-income housing credit rules applicable to the GO Zone. 

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


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 559 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE PLACED IN SERVICE DATE 

2 FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT RULES 

3 FOR BUILDINGS IN GO ZONES. 

4 Paragraph (5) of section 1400N(c) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘January 

6 1, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2013’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 28, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40348 Summary Calendar

ERVIN JOSEPH KENNERSON, Petitioner-Appellee,

versus DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellant..

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. 3:00-CV-642)

_________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * We affirm the district court for the following reasons: 1. For the reasons stated in the magistrate’s report and recommendation2 and the district court’s opinion and order, we agree that, under principles of clearly established federal law, the state trial court’s refusal to reopen the trial prior to closing arguments so that Kennerson could present the testimony of Michael Pratt violated his constitutional right to call witnesses in his defense. Gilmore v. Taylor , 508 U.S. 333, 343 (1993); Chambers v. Mississippi , 410 U.S. 284, 294 & 302 (1973); Washington v. Texas , 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967); see also Roussell v. Jeanne , 842 F.2d 1512, 1515-16 (5th Cir. 1988). 2. We also agree that grave doubt exists as to whether the state court’s error “had a substantial and injurious effect” on the verdict. O’Neal v. McAninch , 513 U.S. 432, 435 (1995). 3. Lastly, we agree that the state habeas court’s necessary conclusions otherwise, in it’s denial of habeas, were either contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The district court correctly granted Kennerson’s petition for habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SPRINGS INDUSTRIES, INC., FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JULY 3,
1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                             691
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  324,959
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    434,570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               804,621
<PP&E>                                       1,405,845
<DEPRECIATION>                                 805,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,528,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          302,683
<BONDS>                                        276,627
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,493
<OTHER-SE>                                     739,475
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,528,906
<SALES>                                      1,128,909
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,128,909
<CGS>                                          927,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  927,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,371
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,890
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,022
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,484
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,538
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,538
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.57


</TABLE>
No. 71-991.

#### Otter Tail Power Co. *v.*United States,

410 U. S. 366. Petition for rehearing denied.

Mr. Justice Blackmun and Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### HAMMOND v. STATE.

No. 26295.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 29, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice,'State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State. '

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area is the offense; the- punishment, a fine of $250 and *60*days in jail.

The record before us contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment, is. affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Kirwin of SBA at 202-205-7261. 

Dated: July 17, 2000. 

Jeanne Sclater, 

Associate Deputy Administrator for Capital Access. 

[FR Doc. 00-25992 Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P