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

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1110 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1110

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified 
  estate and gift tax credit to an amount equivalent to a $1,200,000 
                               exemption.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 1993

Mr. Livingston 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 unified 
  estate and gift tax credit to an amount equivalent to a $1,200,000 
                               exemption.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN UNIFIED ESTATE AND GIFT TAX CREDIT.

    (a) General Rule.--Sections 2010(a) and 2505(a)(1) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking ``$192,800'' and 
inserting ``$427,800''.
    (b) Filing Requirement.--Paragraph (1) of section 6018(a) of such 
Code is amended by striking ``$600,000'' and inserting ``$1,200,000''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts made, after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
##### 



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 Annual Report of National Energy Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bob G. Alexander, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:  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. By:
    /s/ BOB G. ALEXANDERBob G. AlexanderPresident and Chief Executive Officer March 15, 2005  *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Abatement Order filed November 5, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00692

- CR

____________ SAUNDREA ANNETTE JAC KSON , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1340533



### ABATEMENT ORDER
Appellant is represented by appointed counsel on appeal, Jim Leitner. On October 23, 2013 , counsel filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel because he has accepted full

- time employment with the Harris County Sheriff’s Department . Accordingly, we enter the following order.
We ORDER the judge of the 263rd District Court to consider counsel ’ s request to withdraw. If current counsel is permitted to withdraw, the judge shallappoint new appellate counsel for appellant. The judge shall see that a record of

any hearing is made, and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk s record containing any orders permitting counsel to withdraw and appointing new c ounsel. Those records shall be filed with the
cl erk of this court on or before December 5, 2013

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court ’ s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court ’ s active docket when the
trial court ’ s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the Court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility o f any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a hearing in compliance with this Court ’ s order. If the parties do not request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date

an d notify the parties of such date.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 99.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         I, G. Steven  Taylor,  Chief  Financial  Officer of Regan Holding Corp.
(the "Company"), hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Company's
annual  report  on Form  10-K for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002  (the
"Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d))  and  that  the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                 /s/ G. Steven Taylor
                                 --------------------
                                 G. Steven Taylor
                                 March 31, 2003



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Regan Holding Corp.  and will be retained by Regan Holding Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Note to Docket EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-0090

Call with Region IV - Regional Response Team – Science and Technology Committee

2/10/2015

EPA staff participated in a call with representatives from the Regional Response Team for Region IV (RRT 

IV) Science and Technology Committee. The RRT IV Science and Technology Committee is reviewing the 

proposed rule and had questions specifically on the proposed amendments for authorization of use and 

monitoring. A request was made that EPA participate in the upcoming RRT IV Spring meeting to present 

information on the Subpart J rule.

EPA Participants:

Craig Matthiessen

Vanessa Principe

Call with Region IV - Regional Response Team

3/4/2015

EPA staff participated in the Regional Response Team for Region IV (RRT IV) Spring meeting and 

presented an overview of the Subpart J proposed changes. The RRT IV was interested in discussing 

issues potentially impacting planning, preparedness and response. The focus of the presentation was on 

the proposed amendments to the authorization of use provisions, and on the proposed new 

requirements for monitoring dispersant use for major oil discharges, for subsea applications, and for 

prolonged surface applications. The RRT IV Science and Technology Committee is reviewing the 

proposed rule and is planning to submit public comments primarily on the authorization of use and 

monitoring proposed amendments.

EPA Participants:

Vanessa Principe

Greg Wilson

Leigh Dehaven
#### BLAIR et ux. v. LINDSEY.

No. 2254.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

June 6, 1940.

W. E. Pope and A. Jack Pope, Jr., both Corpus Christi, for plaintiffs in error.

Joe E. Webb and A. H. Menefee, both of Madisonville, for defendant in error.

*466ALEXANDER, Justice.

This case was attempted to be removed to this court by writ of error, but the record does not disclose that any petition for writ of error was ever filed. Final judgment was rendered December 9, 1938, and an affidavit of inability to pay costs or give security therefor in lieu of a writ of error bond was filed June 7, 1939, and a citation in error was properly served, but no petition for writ of error appears to have been filed.

Revised Statutes, art. 2256, provides that a party desiring to sue out a writ of error shall file with the clerk of the court in which the judgment was 'rendered a written petition signed by him or his attorney and addressed to such clerk. The filing of such petition for writ of error is necessary in order to confer jurisdiction on this court. Yellow Cab Corporation v. Hill, Tex.Civ.App., 111 S.W.2d 1193.

Since the plaintiffs in error wholly failed to file a petition for writ of error as required by statute, this court never acquired jurisdiction of the cause.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 112 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 112

 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand the boundary of 
 the Homestead National Monument of America, in the State of Nebraska, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2009

 Mr. Fortenberry introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand the boundary of 
 the Homestead National Monument of America, in the State of Nebraska, 
                        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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Homestead National Monument of 
America Boundary Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior may acquire by 
donation or by purchase with donated or appropriated funds, from 
willing sellers only, the lands or interests in lands as described in 
subsection (b), as generally depicted on the map titled ``Homestead 
National Monument of America Boundary'', numbered 368/80,039, and dated 
April 2007.
    (b) Lands Described.--The lands referred to in subsection (a) are--
            (1) the approximately 140 acres located south of the 
        Homestead National Monument and owned by the Friends of 
        Homestead; and
            (2) the approximately 160 acres known as the ``Graff 
        Parcel''.
    (c) Boundary Revision.--The Secretary shall revise the boundary of 
the Homestead National Monument to reflect the acquisition upon its 
completion.
    (d) Administration of Acquired Lands.--Any lands acquired under 
this section shall be administered by the Secretary as part of the 
Homestead National Monument in accordance with applicable laws and 
regulations.
                                 <all>
```
H. R. 1347

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

An Act

To modify the boundary of Hot Springs National Park.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the

boundary of Hot Springs National Park is modified as depicted

on the map entitled ‘‘Proposed Boundary Map’’, numbered 128/

80015, and dated August 5, 1985.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-00326-L

§

CHADRICK ALEX (22) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

CHADRICK ALEX, by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), has 

appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count(s) 35 of the Superseding 

Indictment After cautioning and examining CHADRICK ALEX under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in 

Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea(s) was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense(s) charged is supported 

by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the 

plea(s) of guilty be accepted, and that CHADRICK ALEX be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 18 

U.S.C. 2, namely, Possession With Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, Aiding and Abetting and have sentence 

imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the district judge, 

☐ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody. 

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release. 

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c). 

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release. 

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released. 

Date: 1st day of October, 2024 

 ______________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its service 

shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States District 

Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). 

FILED

KAREN MITCHELL

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT 

COURT October 1, 2024

Case 3:22-cr-00326-L Document 565 Filed 10/01/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1779
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            2722
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 13326
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       4031
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                          79807
<ALLOWANCE>                                      (843)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  104224
<DEPOSITS>                                       83782
<SHORT-TERM>                                       100
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1934
<LONG-TERM>                                       6300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                       12098
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  104224
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   5435
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  440
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  5875
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                2489
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2612
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             3263
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      142
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   2844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1168
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1168
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       716
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.85
<LOANS-NON>                                        204
<LOANS-PAST>                                       678
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   728
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       31
<RECOVERIES>                                         3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  843
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               628
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            215
        

</TABLE>
#### EVANS v. STATE.

No. 20727.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 3, 1940.

*122Bartlett & Bartlett, of Marlin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is forgery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

There is a fatal variance between the purport and tenor clauses of the indictment. In the purport clause it is alleged that appellant made a false instrument in writing purporting to be the act of J. E. Masters,' Sr. The alleged forged instrument, as set out in the indictment, is signed “Edd Masters”. The indictment embraces no innuendo averments explaining the connection between J. E. Masters, Sr., and Edd Masters. See Simms v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 97, 32 S.W.2d 852. The State’s Attorney before this court confesses error.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
<CURRENCY>                       U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                                 15,363
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          55,934
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      100,619
<PP&E>                                 22,445
<DEPRECIATION>                          6,534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        333,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  39,101
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                  211
<OTHER-SE>                            176,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          333,326
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       73,092
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          66,058
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      1,011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         6,023
<INCOME-TAX>                            2,289
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     3,734
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            3,734
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.16
        


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

THE KIDWELL GROUP, LLC, d/b/a AIR QUALITY ASSESSORS OF

FLORIDA, a/a/o BIYAGAMAGE PERERA

, Appellant,

v.

CYPRESS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 782

[ December 9, 2021 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Mardi Levey Cohen, Judge; L.T. Case No.

062020SC009953AXXXCE

.

Chad A. Barr of Chad Barr Law, Altamonte Springs, for appellant.

Steven G. Schwartz and Ch ad M. Weatherstone of Schwartz Law Group,

Boca Raton, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, F ORST and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1375 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1375

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the foreign tax 
      credit and deduction for taxes paid in lieu of income taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 1993

Mr. Traficant 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 deny the foreign tax 
      credit and deduction for taxes paid in lieu of income taxes.

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

SECTION 1. DENIAL OF FOREIGN TAX CREDIT AND DEDUCTION FOR TAXES PAID IN 
              LIEU OF INCOME TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Section 903 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to credit for taxes in lieu of income, etc., taxes) is hereby 
repealed.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart A of 
part III of subchapter N of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
striking the item relating to section 903.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1993.

                                 <all>
```
#### A. C. STONE, et ux., Appellant, v. R. L. MATHEWS, Jr., Appellee.

No. 10967.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

June 11, 1941.

Tom Matthews, Wm. H. Flippen, and John W. Miller, all of Dallas, for appellant.

Church & Steger, of San Antonio, and Bauknight & Mann and J. Byron Brown, all of Austin, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without written opinion. Associated Indemnity Corporation v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., 75 S.W.2d 294.