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

Calendar No. 528 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 184 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2018 

Received; read the first time 

JULY 26, 2018 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the excise tax on medical devices. 

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 ‘‘Protect Medical Inno5 vation Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF MEDICAL DEVICE EXCISE TAX. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 32 of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subchapter E. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 184 PCS 

1 (1) Subsection (a) of section 4221 of such Code 

2 is amended by striking the last sentence. 

3 (2) Paragraph (2) of section 6416(b) of such 

4 Code is amended by striking the last sentence. 

5 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sub6 chapters for chapter 32 of such Code is amended by strik7 ing the item relating to subchapter E. 

8 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall apply to sales after December 31, 2019. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS

pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 528 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 184 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

repeal the excise tax on medical devices. 

JULY 26, 2018 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
Argued and submitted August 4,

reversed and remanded August 24, 1983

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respndent, v.*EDWARD CRAWFERS ADAMS, JR., *Appellant.*

(82-60551; CA A27463)

668 P2d 1231

Robert J. McCrea, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Sally Leisure, Special Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Young, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*421PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for reckless driving. The driving in question culminated in a collision between defendant’s car and another car. Defendant assigns as error the trial court’s receipt, over timely objection, of evidence from various witnesses as to the monetary amount of damage to the other car, as well as evidence of the nature and extent of various personal injuries suffered by passengers in it. We agree with defendant that the prejudicial effect of this evidence far outweighed its probative value, if it had any. The trial court should have sustained defendant’s objections. *See State v. Hookings,*29 Or App 139, 562 P2d 587, *rev den*279 Or 301, *cert denied*434 US 1049 (1977).

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1593 

To repeal the corporate average fuel economy standards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2017 

Mr. WILLIAMS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal the corporate average fuel economy standards. 

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 ‘‘CAFE Standards Re5 peal Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEALING THE CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL 

7 ECONOMY STANDARDS. 

8 Chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code, and the 

9 item relating to such chapter in the analysis of chapters 

10 for subtitle VI of such title, are repealed. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kensey Nash Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Celano, Chief Financial 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:

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.



|                       |  |                         |  | 
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|Date: November 9, 2009 |  | /s/ Michael Celano      |  | 
|                       |  | Michael Celano          |  | 
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Annual Report of AEI Income & Growth Fund
24  LLC  (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB  for  the  period  ended
December  31,  2005,  as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), the  undersigned,
Robert  P.  Johnson, President of AEI Fund Management XXI,  Inc.,
the  Managing Member of the Company, and Patrick W. Keene,  Chief
Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc., each certify,
pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 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/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              March 17, 2006



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              March 17, 2006
#### Harris, Appellant, vs. Tollefson and others, Respondents.

*April 11*

May *9, 1933.*

*443For the appellant there was a brief by *Kaftan, Rohr & Kaftan*of Green Bay, and oral argument by *Robert A. Kaftan.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *George J. Dcm-forth*of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and *Hougen & Brady*of Manitowoc, and oral argument by *Mr. Danforth*and *Mr. C. E. Brady.*

Rosenberry, C. J.

Upon this appeal the plaintiff contends that the agreement and deed made pursuant to the arrangement set out in the statement of facts are void as against public policy because it is a scheme to defeat and thwart the will of the testator, and in support of that contention cites *Will of Dardis,*135 Wis. 457, 115 N. W. 332; *Will of Rice,*150 Wis. 401, 136 N. W. 956, 137 N. W. 778; *Estate of Staab,*166 Wis. 587, 166 N. W. 326; *Graef v. Kanouse,*205 Wis. 597, 238 N. W. 377; *Taylor v. Hoyt,*207 Wis. 520, 242 N. W. 141.

The defendants, on the other hand, contend that the arrangement between the parties contemplated the probate of a valid will; that there was no understanding or agreement that the court was to be in any way imposed upon by withholding of information respecting any possible invalidity of the will; that under the will the title to the real estate passed to the plaintiff upon the probate of the will as of the time of his death; that the parties to the agreement and the deed *444dealt with their several interests under the will as they had a right to do, citing in support of their contention *Estate of Sipchen,*180 Wis. 504, 193 N. W. 385; *Newcomb v. Ingram, ante,*p, 88, 243 N. W. 209, 245 N. W. 121, 248 N. W. 171; *Will of Luscombe,*109 Wis. 186, 85 N. W. 341.

In this case we do not find it necessary to determine whether or not the contract arrangement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants was void as against public policy. The transaction complained of in the plaintiff's complaint was one which is executed. Although a party to the transaction, the plaintiff now seeks the aid of a court of equity to 'cancel and rescind it. Manifestly the transaction is not void in the sense of being inoperative. At most it could be only voidable. If the transaction is valid, then all parties are concluded by it. If it is voidable because of illegality, the parties being *in pari delicto,*the law will leave them where it finds them. The principle of law is stated in the Restatement of the Law of Contracts, sec. 598:

> *“A*party to an illegal bargain can neither recover damages for breach thereof nor, by rescinding the bargain, recover the performance that he has rendered thereunder or its value, except as stated in secs. 599-609.”

The facts in this case do not bring it within any of the exceptions stated in secs. 599-609. The plaintiff is therefore not entitled to recover and the trial court correctly so held. *Sauerhering v. Rueping,*137 Wis. 407, 119 N. W 184.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Risk Evaluation for a General Electric BWR,Effects of Fire Protection System Actuation on Safety-Related Equipment:Evaluation of Generic Issue 57 (NUREG/CR-5791, SAND91-1536)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-5791 (PDF - 6.57 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**October 1992**Date Published:**December 1992

**Prepared by:** J. Lambright, S. Ross, S. Daniel Sandia National Laboratories  P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-5800 Operated by Sandia Corporation

E. Klamerus (Subcontractor) Science and Engineering Associates, Inc.  6100 Uptown Blvd. NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110

**Prepared for:** Division of Safety Issue Resolution Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001 

NRC FIN L-1334

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Nuclear power plants have experienced actuations of fire protection systems (FPSs) under conditions for which these systems were not intended to actuate. They have also experienced advertent actuations with the presence of a fire. These actuations have often damaged nearby plant equipment.

A review of past occurrences of both types of such events on nuclear power plant safety, and a cost-benefit analysis of potential corrective measures, have been performed. Thirteen different scenarios leading to actuation of fire protection systems due to a variety of causes were identified. These scenarios range from inadvertent actuation caused by human errors to hardware failures and include seismic root causes and seismic/fire interactions. A quantification of these thirteen scenarios, where applicable, was performed on a BWR4/MKI. This report estimates the contribution of FPS actuations to core damage frequency and risk, proposes physical modifications to reduce the risk from the dominant contributors, and estimates the values and impacts of the proposed modifications.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1997

# Westinghouse Tells NRC Misplaced Reactor Fuel Rods Found at Temelin Nuclear Power Plant in Czech Republic

----

----

No: II-97-33

April 18, 1997

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 331-5503)

Roger Hannah (404) 331-7878

**WESTINGHOUSE TELLS NRC MISPLACED REACTOR FUEL RODS FOUND AT TEMELIN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN CZECH REPUBLIC**

Officials At Westinghouse Electric Corporation's Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division plant in Columbia, South Carolina, have reported to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission that two unirradiated reactor fuel rods, found missing on March 20, have been located at the Temelin nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic, about 90 miles south of Prague.

The rods, containing small amounts of low enriched uranium, were located in a "replica" fuel rod assembly which normally contains pellets made of nonradioactive lead. Westinghouse had fabricated the replica assembly at the South Carolina plant and shipped it to the Temelin plant for use by workers in training and calibration of equipment.

Each rod contained 57 grams of uranium-235 at an enrichment of 3.8 percent. Westinghouse reported that they cannot be converted for weapons use because a minimum of 1900 grams of uranium-235 at this low level of enrichment would be required for a critical mass.

Westinghouse officials said a preliminary investigation points to human error and a weakness in the system for producing non-uranium replica fuel assemblies. The plant has stopped producing such assemblies and will not reinstitute their production until a new procedure and system for tracking replica assemblies and rods has been established and tested.

NRC officials said Westinghouse reported that the plant became aware the two rods were missing on March 20 during a routine accountability check. The plant's license allows 30 days to report such events, and the company notified the NRC on April 15. The first fuel rod was located April 17 and the second April 18, both in the same replica fuel assembly.

The NRC is establishing a special inspection team which will visit the plant later this month to review circumstances associated with the event.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
       
<S>                                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                     OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                          JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                                                  1,025,428
<SECURITIES>                                                               38,902
<RECEIVABLES>                                                              45,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                        1,122,262
<PP&E>                                                                     28,734
<DEPRECIATION>                                                              9,534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          1,756,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                     236,527
<BONDS>                                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                                    1,609
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                                              1,251,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            1,756,773
<SALES>                                                                    53,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                          192,458
<CGS>                                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          121,041
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                            85,735
<INCOME-TAX>                                                               16,650
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                        69,085
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                               69,085
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                                 .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                 .04
        

</TABLE>
#### Rands, Special Administratrix, Respondent, vs. Prissel and another, Appellants: General Casualty Company, Interpleaded Defendant.

For the appellants : *Farr & MacLeod*of Eau Claire, attorneys, and *Richmond, Jackman, Wilkie & Toebaas*of Madison of counsel.

For the respondent: *Willis E. Donley*and *A. M. Jelik,*both of Menomonie.

For the interpleaded defendant: *Bundy, Beach & Flolland*of Eau Claire.

*By the Court.*—

Judgment affirmed.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20

- 892

_____________________________
L ANDON B. B ARNES , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Michael S. Sharrit , Judge

. September 22, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , N ORDBY , and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Office of Candice K. Brower, Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, and D. Renee Waters, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, Green Cove Springs
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### In re James Ronald CRESSMAN and Ann Marie Cressman, husband and wife, Debtors. LAFAYETTE TRUST BANK, Plaintiff, v. James Ronald CRESSMAN and Ann Marie Cressman, Defendants.

Bankruptcy No. 81-03626 T.

Adv. No. 81-2021.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

March 19, 1982.

Thomas P. Stitt, Easton, Pa., for defendant.

Terence L. Faul, Bangor, Pa., for plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION

THOMAS M. TWARDOWSKI, Bankruptcy Judge.

This case is before us on the complaint of a creditor to modify the automatic stay under 362(d). For reasons hereinafter given, we will dismiss the creditor’s complaint and allow the stay to remain in effect.1

The debtor-defendants James Ronald Cressman and Ann Marie Cressman (hereinafter, “debtors”) filed a petition under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on September 10,1981. The schedules filed by the debtors listed their interest in real estate located at 3245 Illinois Street, Easton, Pennsylvania. This real estate was encumbered by a mortgage and two judgment notes held by Lafayette Trust Bank (hereinafter, “the Bank”). The Bank filed a complaint to modify the automatic stay imposed by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362. The debtors filed an application to avoid the Bank’s judgment liens. The matters were consolidated for trial and a hearing was held on March 3, 1982. We are issuing an Opinion and Order which allows the debtors to avoid the judgment liens.

The balance due on the mortgage at the date of the hearing was $55,790.10. The value of the real estate was estimated to be $66,500.00. Debtors have amended schedules B-4 to exempt the difference of $11,-290.00 under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5) because *541the real estate is not being used as their principal residence. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) grants this Court the power to modify the automatic stay on request of a party in interest under the following circumstances:

> 1. for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest; or

> 2. with respect to a stay of an act against property, if-

> (a) the debtor does not have an equity in such property; and

> (b) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

The Bank has not demonstrated that its interest in the subject property is being detrimentally affected during the pendency of the stay. There is no evidence before us upon which to conclude that the value of the real estate is depreciating. As the Bank has the first mortgage position, it is not being prejudiced by the stay. We have determined that the debtors have equity in the property as a result of our decision that the Bank’s judgment notes are avoidable. For these reasons, we will dismiss the Bank’s complaint to modify the stay.

1

. This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 752 of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
#### Cynthia M. Ingram et al., Appellants, v Town of Clarkson et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 38]

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court improperly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs submitted evidence that, as the result of the accident, Cynthia M. Ingram (plaintiff) suffers from chondromalacia of the left knee and that her condition restricts her ability to squat, kneel, walk and stand. That proof is sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see, Hulsen v Morrison,*206 AD2d 459; *De Angelo v Fidel Corp. Servs.,*171 AD2d 588; *Akin v Estate of Patti,*149 AD2d 964; *Mulhauser v Wood,*107 AD2d 1019, *appeals dismissed*65 NY2d 637). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 Globix Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert M.
Dennerlein, Chief Financial 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.


Date: May 13, 2005

                                                    /s/ Robert M. Dennerlein
                                                    ------------------------
                                                    Robert M. Dennerlein
                                                    Chief Financial Officer