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

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 190 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for economic recovery 

in the territories. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Ms. PLASKETT 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 

for economic recovery in the territories. 

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 ‘‘Territorial Tax Equity 

5 and Economic Growth Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION TO RESIDENCE AND SOURCE RULES 

7 INVOLVING POSSESSIONS. 

8 (a) BONA FIDE RESIDENT.—Section 937(a) of the 

9 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

10 (1) by striking the last sentence, and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 190 IH

1 (2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as fol2 lows: 

3 ‘‘(1) who has a substantial presence (deter4 mined under the principles of section 7701(b)(3)(A) 

5 (applied by substituting ‘122 days’ for ‘31 days’ in 

6 clause (i) thereof) without regard to sections 

7 7701(b)(3)(B), (C), and (D)) during the taxable 

8 year in Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mar9 iana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands, as 

10 the case may be, and’’. 

11 (b) SOURCE RULES.—Section 937(b) of such Code 

12 is amended— 

13 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 

14 (1), 

15 (2) in paragraph (2) by striking the period at 

16 the end and inserting the following: ‘‘to the extent 

17 such income is attributable to an office or fixed 

18 place of business within the United States (deter19 mined under the rules of section 864(c)(5)),’’, and 

20 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

21 ‘‘(3) for purposes of paragraph (1), the prin22 ciples of section 864(c)(2), rather than rules similar 

23 to the rules in section 864(c)(4), shall apply for pur24 poses of determining whether income from sources 

25 without a possession specified in subsection (a)(1) is 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 190 IH

1 effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or 

2 business within such possession, and 

3 ‘‘(4) for purposes of paragraph (2), income 

4 from activities within the United States which are of 

5 a preparatory or auxiliary character shall not be 

6 treated as income from sources within the United 

7 States or as effectively connected with the conduct 

8 of a trade or business within the United States.’’. 

9 (c) SOURCE RULES FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY

10 SALES.—Section 865(j)(3) of such Code is amended by 

11 adding ‘‘932,’’ after ‘‘931,’’ and before ‘‘933.’’. 

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

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 24.8

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Know all by these presents, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint Mike
Kinney and Robert E. Brummels, or either of them, as my attorney-in-fact with full power of substitution, to execute in their respective names, individually and in my capacity as director:

(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the 2007 Annual Report) of Husker Ag, LLC and any and all
amendments thereto, and to file the 2007 Annual Report, any and all such amendments, and exhibits and documents thereto required in connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission and granting unto each attorney-in-fact and any
substitute, full power and authority to do and to perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully as I might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof; and

(ii) the Rule 13e-3 Transaction
Statement Under Section 13(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Schedule 13E-3 (the Schedule 13E-3) of Husker Ag, LLC and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the Schedule 13E-3, any and all such amendments, and
exhibits and documents thereto required in connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission and granting unto each attorney-in-fact and any substitute, full power and authority to do and to perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully as I might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24thday of March, 2008.



/s/ J. Alex ThramerJ. Alex Thramer




|                  |  |   |  |    
|----------------- |  | - |  | ---
|STATE OF NEBRASKA |  | ) |  |    
|                  |  | ) |  | ss.
|COUNTY OF PIERCE  |  | ) |  |    

On this 24thday of March, 2008, before me, a Notary public qualified for said County, personally came J. Alex Thramer, known to me to be the identical person who signed
the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the execution thereof to be his voluntary act and deed.



|       |  |  |  |  |  |                                 
|------ |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------
|       |  |  | 
|       |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Kristine Wacker             
|{Seal} |  |  |  |  |  | Notary Public                   
|       |  |  | 
|       |  |  |  |  |  | My commission expires: 2-28-2010
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TOBY LYNN BISHOP,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

SHERYL FOSTER,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-15627

D.C. No. CV 05-00908-RLHGWF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Roger L. Hunt, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 8, 2010

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Toby Lynn Bishop appeals from the district court’s dismissal of

his habeas petition as untimely. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

1. Reviewing de novo, Zepeda v. Walker, 581 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir.

2009), we hold that Petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2). "Because the state court rejected petitioner’s [state post-conviction]

FILED

MAR 17 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

petition as untimely, it was not ‘properly filed,’ and he is not entitled to statutory

tolling under § 2244(d)(2)." Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 (2005); see

also Townsend v. Knowles, 562 F.3d 1200, 1205 (9th Cir.) (same), cert. denied,

130 S. Ct. 193 (2009). Petitioner argues that he is not subject to that rule because

the Nevada Supreme Court applied a new rule. But "whether a condition to filing

is firmly established and regularly followed is irrelevant. Instead, where a state

court rejects a petition for failure to comply with conditions of filing, that is the

end of the matter." Zepeda, 581 F.3d at 1018 (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s

motion to amend or alter the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

59(e). See Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) ("We

review a district court's decision on a Rule 59(e) motion to amend a judgment for

abuse of discretion."). Petitioner did not raise the issue of equitable tolling, on any

ground, until after judgment in the Rule 59(e) motion. Additionally, before the

Nevada Supreme Court, Petitioner did not argue that he had relied on an allegedly

superseded prison-mailbox rule.

3. During oral argument, Petitioner’s lawyer urged that Petitioner is

entitled to relief as a matter of "equal protection." To the extent that this assertion
3

constituted a separate argument, we do not address arguments raised for the first

time during oral argument. Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d 624, 642 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 129 S. Ct. 767 (2008).

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection  with the  accompanying  Annual  Report of  Electronic  Media
Central  Corporation  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2006 (the "Report"),  I, Roger Casas,  Chief Executive  Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  June 30, 2006

                                                          /s/ Roger Casas
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Roger Casas
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.











                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
Other Supporting Documents 

MCU Facility PSD Permit 

Amendment
1

The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1151

___________

Garry Dean Ensey, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Arkansas Board of Pardons & Paroles, *

Arkansas Department of Correction; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Joelle Deppa, Director, RSVP Program, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: May 7, 1999

 Filed: May 19, 1999

___________

Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Garry Dean Ensey appeals from the district court’s1

 dismissal

without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. After
-2-

carefully reviewing the record and Mr. Ensey’s brief, we conclude dismissal without

prejudice was proper for the reasons the district court stated and that an extended

discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Ms. Lynne A. Liddington, Co-Chair 

NACAA Criteri a Pollutants Committee 

444 North Capitol Street, NW 

Suite 307 

Washington, D.C. 2000 I 

Dear Ms. Liddington: 

DEC 2 1 J5 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Thank you for youT letter dated December 14, 2015, requesting a 15-day extension of the public 

comment period for the proposed rule revisions titled --Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional 

Events·· (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0572) and the associated draft guidance document titled 

·'Draft Guidance on the Preparation of Exceptional Events Demonstrations for Wildfire Events that May 

Influence Ozone Concentrations'· (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-20 I 5-0229). 

After considering your request. we have decided to extend the public comment period for I 5 days. We 

believe that a 75-day comment period allows interested parties adequate time to thoroughly review and 

analyze these documents and provide meaningful comments. The comment period will now close on 

February 3, 20 16. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions. please contact me or your staff may 

contact Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor, in the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

at lorang.phil@epa.gov or (919) 541-5463. 

Sincerely, 

Janet G. McCabe 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address (URL) • ht1p:llwww.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable 0 11 Based Inks on too•. Postconsumer. Process Chlonne Free Recycled Paper 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Mr. George S. Aburn. Jr .. Co-Chair 

NACAA Criteria Pollutants Committee 

444 North Capitol Street, NW 

Suite 307 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Dear Mr. Aburn: 

DEC 2 1 _ IS 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Thank you for your letter dated December 14, 2015, requesting a 15-day extension of the public 

comment period for the proposed rule revisions titled .. Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional 

Events'· (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0572) and the associated draft guidance document titled 

.. Draft Guidance on the Preparation of Exceptional Events Demonstrations for Wildfire Events that May 

Influence Ozone Concentrations" (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-20 15-0229). 

After considering your request, we have decided to extend the public comment period for 15 days. We 

believe that a 75-day comment period allows interested parties adequate time to thoroughly review and 

analyze these documents and provide meaningful comments. The comment period will now close on 

February 3, 2016. 

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have further questions, please contact me or your staff may 

contact Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor, in the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

at /orang.phil@epa.gov or (919) 541-5463. 

Sincerely. 

Janet G. McCabe 

Acting Assistant Administrator 

Internet Address (URL) • http:ffwww.epa.gov 

RecycledfRecyclablc • Pnnted with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100•. Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
#### BENEFICIAL FINANCE OF KANSAS, INC., appellant, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 81-583.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Dec. 13, 1982.

Case below, *Rodrock v. Security Industrial Bank,*Bkrtcy., 3 B.R. 629; *Hoops v. Freedom Finance and Security Industrial Bank,*Bkrtcy., 3 B.R. 635, 642 F.2d 1193.

The appeal is dismissed as moot.
#### J. M. BAILEY v. A. J. RUTJES.

*Appeal.*

Motion to dismiss appeal will be allowed where there is no waiver of the undertaking and no money deposit in lieu thereof, and where the bond is not justified in double the amount specified therein.

*(Harshaw*v. MeDowell, 89 N. C., 181, cited and approved.)

Motion by plaintiff to dismiss an appeal, heard at October Term, 1884, of The Supreme Court.

*Messrs. Sinclair*and *Batchelor & Devereux,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs.*Folk,.and *Recede, Busbee &*Busbee, for defendant.

*421Merrimon, J.

It does not appear by the record or otherwise in writing, that an undertaking upon appeal was waived by the appellant, or that a sum of money in lieu of such undertaking was deposited with the clerk by order of the court. It does appear, however, that an undertaking was given, but it was not properly justified by a surety thereto. He fails to make affidavit in connection therewith, “ that he is worth *double*the amount specified therein.”

The appellee, for the causes mentioned, moved to dismiss the appeal. It is obvious that he is entitled to have his motion allowed. In the absence of an undertaking duly justified, the appeal has “no effect.” The Code, §560; *Harshaw*v. McDowell, 89 N. C., 181.

Motion allowed.
# L_2015281EN.01001301.xml

| 27.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 281/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 281/13

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2015/1926

of 26 October 2015

amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/778 on a European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 18 May 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/778 on a European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED) (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 18 May 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/778 on a European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED) (1).

| (2) | On 24 September 2015, the Operation Commander proposed that the operation be named SOPHIA. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 24 September 2015, the Operation Commander proposed that the operation be named SOPHIA.

| (3) | Decision (CFSP) 2015/778 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision (CFSP) 2015/778 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Name of the operation

In the title and throughout the text of Decision (CFSP) 2015/778, the name ‘EUNAVFOR MED’ shall henceforth be replaced in all instances by the name ‘EUNAVFOR MED operation SOPHIA’ and any necessary grammatical changes shall be made.

Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Luxembourg, 26 October 2015.

For the Council

The President

F. MOGHERINI

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/778 of 18 May 2015 on a European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED) (OJ L 122, 19.5.2015, p. 31).

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41103

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PAUL DANA WILLIAMS, also known as Paul William Dana,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:91-CR-34-ALL

--------------------

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Dana Williams, federal prisoner # 07339-051, appeals

the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion for modification of

sentence. He argues that retroactive Amendments 433, 506, and

591 to the Sentencing Guidelines coupled with the holding of

United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), affected the

method by which U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (Career Offender) was applied to

his kidnapping and firearms convictions. 
No. 05-41103

-2-

Our review of Williams’s sentencing reveals that none of the

cited amendments have any application to the sentence the

district court imposed. To the extent that Williams invokes

Booker, such an argument is not cognizable in the context of a

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion because it is not based on a

retroactive amendment to the Guidelines. See United States v.

Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir. 1994). In light of the foregoing,

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

motion. See United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir.

1994). 

AFFIRMED.
No. 86-762.

#### Cardo *v.*Murphy et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 24.7

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Know all by these presents, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint Mike
Kinney and Robert E. Brummels, or either of them, as my attorney-in-fact with full power of substitution, to execute in their respective names, individually and in my capacity as director, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2006 (the 2006 Annual Report) of Husker Ag, LLC and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the 2006 Annual Report, any and all such amendments, and exhibits and documents thereto required in connection therewith
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto each attorney-in-fact and any substitute, full power and authority to do and to perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully as I
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20thday of March, 2007.



/s/ Gerald WinterGerald Winter




|                  |  |   |  |    
|----------------- |  | - |  | ---
|STATE OF NEBRASKA |  | ) |  |    
|                  |  | ) |  | ss.
|COUNTY OF PIERCE  |  | ) |  |    

On this 20thday of March, 2007, before me, a Notary public qualified for said County, personally came Gerald Winter, known to me to be the
identical person who signed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the execution thereof to be his voluntary act and deed.



/s/ Kristine C. WackerNotary PublicMy commission expires: 2-28-2010
JOHN TATUM 990 S. Sherman

 ATTORNEY AT LAW Richardson, Texas 75081

(972) 705-9200 

February 27, 2015

Court of Criminal Appeals

c/o Abel Acosta

Chief Deputy Clerk

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

Re: Oral argument in Cause No. AP-77,031

Franklin Davis v. The State of Texas 

Dear Mr. Acosta:

Pursuant to Rule 71.3 Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I am advising this

Honorable Court that I, on behalf of Appellant in the above referenced cause, am

requesting oral argument on issue No. 4 which argues that the dismissal of Juror Bigley

from the jury was error and No. 11, the evidence was insufficient to support the

conviction for capital murder.

I believe oral argument would help present these issues in full context and help

present a comparative analysis of the issues raised. Therefore, I respectfully request

oral argument on these issues.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Tatum

John Tatum

JT:mt

AP-77,0031

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 8/10/2015 12:01:57 PM

Accepted 8/10/2015 12:58:45 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Regional Health Command-Pacific Hosts Pacific Region Medical Command Teams during Fall Symposium

By Emily YehRegional Health Command-Pacific

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News