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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 116 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 116

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
              telephone and other communications services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2015

  Mr. Heller introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on 
              telephone and other communications services.

    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 ``Telephone Excise Tax Elimination Act 
of 2015''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS 
              SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking subchapter B.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 4293 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
        amended by striking ``chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed 
        by sections 4064 and 4121) and subchapter B of chapter 33,'' 
        and inserting ``and chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by 
        sections 4064 and 4121),''.
            (2) Subsection (e) of section 6302 of such Code is 
        amended--
                    (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 
                ``Communications Services and'',
                    (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``section 4251 
                or'', and
                    (C) in paragraph (2)--
                            (i) by striking ``4251, 4261,'' and 
                        inserting ``4261'', and
                            (ii) by striking ``bills rendered or''.
            (3) Section 6415 of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``4251, 4261, or 4271'' each place it appears and inserting 
        ``4261 or 4271''.
            (4) Paragraph (2) of section 7871(a) of such Code is 
        amended--
                    (A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or'' at the 
                end,
                    (B) by striking subparagraph (C), and
                    (C) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as 
                subparagraph (C).
            (5) The table of subchapters for chapter 33 of such Code is 
        amended by striking the item relating to subchapter B.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered more than 90 
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII 901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 September 23, 2011

Dear Owner/Resident: Leonardo Degante Omaha, Nebraska 68107 3718 South 24 Street

3718 South 24 Street

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performe d on your property by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a signific ant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint co nditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the yardabove acceptable levels. Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 3718 Sou th 24 Street. The EPA has developed paint stabilization eligibility criteria that involve mea suring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a structure and calculating the concentration of leadin soils around the home that would result if all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessmen t, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint observed on structure surfaces was estimated and th e lead content in the deteriorated paint was measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument. The data obtained during the LBP assessment was use d to estimate the increase in soil lead concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the ground surface within six feet of the foundation an d be uniformly mixed with the top one inch of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the so il potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses these criteria to rank properties based on the pote ntial for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint stabilization is being offered at only those househ olds with the most severe LBP problems, particularly where children under the age of seven reside. Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the a bove criteria indicated that your house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization. RE: SAID: 2390Enclosures

Para información en español, llame al EPA Informati on Center (402) 731-3045. Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts Project Coordinator Environmental Protection Agency If you have any questions or concerns, please conta ct the EPA Public Information Center at (402) 731-3045.Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment LEGEND: H 

### - N 

### - P 

### - 01 

### - 12345 Samples Analyzed BVID Number

- Sample Number
- Mater~al P = Patnt Stde of Structure N = North S = South E = East W =West Sample Number Concentration StructurelFeature (Window, siding, porch. etc.) rnglcrnZ rngIcrn2 mglcrn2 mg1cm2 Substrate Color Deteriorated (wood, concrete, etc.) Area
S:

DEPARTMENT OF ek AIR FORCE

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY

Rig MEMORANDUM

C/4‘)

% .1/4.,t sk.4....A iN" I 0%% •

4.4 r Sliedlajta."4 4" CA

4-40-1

c..„ ,ta

-4 ktu (J•••

'Sas to. 4. 44.•

•

Tit.4 `41

fr
4""`"111111ReLLI•I II

Mill VIA

110 -TV-SECRET- • -TALENT-Kat COON' WTI*

-1St NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

November 12, 1971

MEMORANDUM FOR COLONEL VON INS (JCS ACSAN)

SUBJECT: 156 Committee Recommendations

Following is the set of recommendations proposed by

the NSAM 156 Committee following its third Working Group

meeting. The recommendations reflect the guidance which

I received from Dr. &Lucas and Mr. Packard.

Executive Congressional briefings should be

conducted with coordination by the principal agencies

including JCS. The briefings mould cover our capability

to verify Strategic Arms Limitation Agreements.

The "fact of" satellite reconnaissance should

become declassified. In response to public and Congressional

questioning, it should be explained that national technical

means include information-gathering satellites. This will

be the extent of the declassification of the satellite reconnaissance activity.

Administration spokesmen should state that

national technical means are adequate to monitor agreements.

Spokesmen should also state that no further details will be

given in public about the characteristics of our national

technical means.

It is essential to consider at an appropriate

time, the desirability of conveying our intention to make

these statements to the Soviet authorities and obtain Soviet

mama tit

--TALENTMISLE--

UNITIMAITSTIM

TOPSERET IISCIL42115 0110119•••0211•TK ••••111,110

OOi •••11C1ivf UN) •• 110►1. sot im•ty

COOMMIt Internal 

CP7Vit.Ce;Mar.1441:s
'`'2 :*4

7

£003001 NO Internal

£011• OW COPIES

.

;

. .

• NII0►t

—-K -

£00700a

TOPSECRET--

MUM: 20010 2100•1114

200 0 NICOV► %M00 to IOW% too AP",

..10ollti VIA

-TOP-SECREF- --TALENHEYHOL

COMM 02.2120

acceptance. Third parties should also be consulted prior to

the issuance of statements.

It is understood by the 156 Committee that the recommendations will require further study and planning by the Verification

Panel and the USIB.

Since the 156 Committee still reports directly to the

President, the NSC Staff representative does not associate

himself with Recommendations 2 and 3. It remains to be seen

what the disposition of these recommendations will be.

Assistant Deputy Director

for Plans and Policy

•
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




I,
      Donald
      S. Robbins, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of CSMG Technologies, Inc. for the year ended
      December 31, 2007 (the “Form 10-K”), that the Form 10-K fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-K fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of CSMG Technologies, Inc. for the periods covered by the
      Form 10-K.


Dated:
              March 27, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Donald
              S.
              RobbinsDonald
                S. Robbins
              Chief
                Executive Officer




I,
      K.
      Bruce Jones, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of CSMG Technologies, Inc. for the year ended
      December 31, 2007 (the “Form 10-K”), that the Form 10-K fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-K fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of CSMG Technologies, Inc. for the periods covered by the
      Form 10-K.


Dated:
              March 27, 2008
            By:
            /s/ K.
              Bruce
              JonesK.
                  Bruce Jones
                Chief
                  Financial Officer




This
      certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by §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.
#### Abendschein, Respondent, vs. Nienstedt, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Hougen & Brady*of Manitowoc.

For the respondent: *A. MeComb*of Green Bay, attorney, and *Leo Bruemmer*of Kewaunee of counsel.

For the Northwestern Loan and Trust Company, administrator : *Allan V. Classon*of Oconto.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirrriéd.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DWAYNE JARREL JOHNSON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-5474

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 13, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for

Charlotte County; Donald H. Mason,

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Gary R. Gossett, Jr., Special

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow,

for Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Peter Koclanes,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa,

for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### Smith and another, Respondents, vs. Transportation Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Shaw, Muskat & Paulsen*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents: *R. V. Baker, Jr.*of Kenosha, *Leonard Spira*of Chicago, Illinois, and *Richmond, Jackman, Wilkie & Toebaas*of Madison.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on March 7, 1933.
#### Graham (Bertha), Appellant, vs. Chicago Portrait Company, imp., Respondent.

For the appellant: *H. B. Rogers*of Portage.

For the respondent: *Grady, Farnsworth & Walker*of Portage.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
1 of 3 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF AVIATION ENFORCEMENT AND PROCEEDINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

---------------------------------------------------- -- )

)

Benjamin Edelman, )

third

- party complainant )

)

v. ) Docket DOT

- OST

- 2013

- 0214

)

American Airlines, Inc. )

)

------------------------------------------------------ )

MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FILINGS

Comments with respect to this document should be addres sed to:

Benjamin Edelman

169 Walnut St.

Brookline, MA 02445

E

- mail: ben@benedelman.org

Dated: January 30 , 20142 of 3 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF AVIATION ENFORCEMENT AND PROCEEDINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

------------------------------------ --------------------------- )

)

Benjamin Edelman, )

thir d

- party complainant )

)

v. ) Docket DOT

- OST

- 2013

- 0214

)

American Airlines, Inc. )

)

--------------------------------------------------------------- )

MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL FILINGS

1. I believe further briefing can help address questions of fact and law raised

by Air Europa’s Answer, thereby clarifying the issues presented to DOT.

2. I propose a single further reply and surreply. My reply accompanies this

motion.

3. I requested Air Europa’s consent to this further briefing. Air Europa’s

counsel did not object to such further briefing.

Respectfully submitted

,

/s/

Benjamin Edelman3 of 3 Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have, this 30 th day of January , 2014 caused a c opy of the foregoing

Motion to be served by electronic mail on the following persons:

Aaron A. Goerlich, Esq. agoerlich@ggh

- airlaw.com

Samuel Podberesky, Esq. sam.podberesky@dot.gov

/s/

_____________________ Benjamin Edelm an
CLASSIFIED 41111114 UNAPT FROM

CRNERAL DI SCHEDULE OF

GMT se2 DECLASSIFY ON um DEL

EXECUTIVE ORDER net EXEMPTION CATE.

Internal

PIM

NAM

VIMTALENT- ZYHOLE/C01414111111P

Jo nt y

117TIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

•

WASHINGTON. D.C. IONIMNIIIPIIMI

THE NRO STAFF May 17, 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. MCLUCAS

SUBJECT: OMB Staff Report

Attached is a memorandum from General Allen forwarding

a copy of an OMB Staff Report, "An Evaluation of the Collection,

Analysis, and Distribution of Intelligence Data on Soviet ICBMS,

SLBMS, ABM System, and Space Programs." Also attached is a

"Plan of Action in Response to Recommendations of OMB Staff

Study Report."

Although no comments were asked for, it would appear

appropriate to respond to General Allen's letzer. We understand that Dr. Hall has suggested sending one response from

DOD. Because some of the items in the OMB report refer

specifically to NRO systems, we recommend that a separate

NRO response be sent. An informal conversation with Dr. Jack

Martin indicated that comments from individual program managers

are appropriate.

The memorandum at the right acknowledges the CIA Plan of

Action and asks for participation in intelligence community

activities responding to the problems identified. This memorandum proposes that the NRO participate in the cross budget

resource analysis area--an area we have not previously concerned

ourselves with to any great extent. I believe to properly

represent the capabilities and limitations of NRP collectors,

we must be represented in cross program deliberations.

RECOMMENDATION: That you sign the memorandum at the right.
# C_2004314EN.01001104.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/11

---

Removal from the register of Case C-21/04 (1)

(2004/C 314/27)

By order of 8 September 2004 the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-21/04: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             180
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,919
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      8,448
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         27,004
<ALLOWANCE>                                        174
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,454
<DEPOSITS>                                      17,380
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                539
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,562
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  40,454
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    582
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  204
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   786
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 227
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 259
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              527
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        5
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    192
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       103
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.31
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   153
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  174
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            174
        

</TABLE>
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM May 2019

D.1 (-) Pollution 

of surface and 

groundwater 

resources (from 

existing facility)

I.2. (+) Soil Erosion

(sheet and rill) 

short-term, during 

deconstruction and 

construction 

3. Existing lagoon or other 

structure for liquid waste 

storage converted to fresh

water storage.

Start

I.9 (-) Odor 

complaints 

from 

neighbors

Note: 

Effects are qualified with a 

plus (+) or minus (-). These 

symbols indicate only an 

increase (+) or a decrease (-) 

in the effect upon the 

resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

 

D.4 (-) Emissions:

(-) Odor from existing 

waste storage structure; 

(-) Ammonia (NH3) 

emissions; (-) Methane 

(CH4) emissions; (-) 

ozone precursors

I.1 (-) Nutrients, 

organics, pathogens, 

and salinity in 

surface and 

groundwater

I.12 (+) Water 

fowl and wildlife 

habitat.

I.3 (+) 

Sediment 

and turbidity 

in surface 

waters 

(short-term)

C.5 (+/-) Income and 

income stability 

(individuals and 

communities)

Waste Recycling (633) 

Nutrient Management (590)

Waste Transfer (634)

Pumping Plant (533)

Waste Treatment (629)

Solid/Liquid Waste Separation Facility (632)

I.10 (-) 

Potential 

liability.

Waste Facility Closure (360)

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Mitigating practice or 

activity

Associated practice

2. Existing structure demolished, 

breached, disassembled or otherwise 

altered to such an extent that no 

waste can be stored or impounded.

C.3 (+) Air Quality in 

the airshed

C.4 (+) Health of 

humans, 

domestic 

animals, and 

C.1. (+) Quality of wildlife.

receiving surface and 

groundwater resources

Initial Setting: Onsite facilities, no longer 

needed/used for their intended purpose, 

where agricultural wastes were handled, 

treated, and/or stored.

D.3. (+) 

Exposed soil

D.6 (+) Cost of 

deconstruction/

construction, 

and operation 

and 

maintenance (if 

project involves 

a conversion).

I.5 (+) Nutrients and 

salinity to

groundwater

Excavation of contaminated 

material and refilling with 

carbonaceous material; 

land application of 

excavated materials under 

practice standard Nutrient 

Management (Code 590)

C.2 (+) Soil quality 

I.4 (+) Potential for 

leaching of excess 

nutrients and salinity 

from soil profile

D.7 (+)

Fresh 

water 

storage

I.11 (+) Increase 

water quantity and 

availability (longterm)

Critical Area Planting (342)

4. Revegetation of site

D.2. (+) 

Vegetative 

growth

1. Stored 

contents

removed

D.5 (-) Risk to 

humans, 

livestock and 

wildlife; (-) 

Safety hazard)

I.8 (+) Air quality

I.7 (-) Nutrients and 

salinity in soil profile

I.6 (-) Groundwater quality
EXHIBIT (32)



South Street Financial Corp.

Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of South Street Financial Corp. (the Company) certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |                            
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Dated: March 24, 2004 |  | /s/ R. Ronald Swanner      
|                      |  | R. Ronald Swanner          
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer    
|                      | 
|Dated: March 24, 2004 |  | /s/ Christopher F. Cranford
|                      |  | Christopher F. Cranford    
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer