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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 425 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 425

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent the alternative 
 minimum tax from effectively repealing the Federal tax exemption for 
          interest on State and local private activity bonds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2009

   Mr. Neal of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin) 
 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 prevent the alternative 
 minimum tax from effectively repealing the Federal tax exemption for 
          interest on State and local private activity bonds.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX ON PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 57 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items of tax preference) is amended 
by striking paragraph (5).
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Subparagraph (B) of section 1(g)(7) of such Code is 
        amended by adding ``and'' at the end of clause (i), by striking 
        ``, and'' at the end of clause (ii) and inserting a period, and 
        by striking clause (iii).
            (2) Subclause (II) of section 53(d)(1)(B)(ii) of such Code 
        is amended by striking ``, (5),''.
            (3) Subparagraph (C) of section 56(b)(1) of such Code is 
        amended by striking clause (iii) and redesignating clauses (iv) 
        and (v) as clauses (iii) and (iv), respectively.
            (4) Paragraph (3) of section 148(b) of such Code is amended 
        to read as follows:
            ``(3) Exception for tax-exempt bonds.--The term `investment 
        property' does not include any tax-exempt bond.''.
            (5) Subparagraph (B) of section 149(g)(3) of such Code is 
        amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) Exception for investment in tax-exempt 
                bonds.--Such term shall not include any bond issued as 
                part of an issue 95 percent of the net proceeds of 
                which are invested in bonds the interest on which is 
                not includible in gross income under section 103.''.
            (6) Paragraph (5) of section 1400L(d) of such Code is 
        amended by striking subparagraph (E).
            (7) Paragraph (5) of section 1400N(a) of such Code is 
        amended by striking subparagraph (G).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee 

Draft Meeting Agenda 

October 5 and 6, 2010 

Crowne Plaza National Airport 

1489 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202 

(703) 416-1600 

Oct 5 - Subcommittee Meetings 

8:30 – 12:00 Economic Incentives and Regulatory Innovation 

 Multi-pollutant sector approaches to air pollution control– Keith Mason 

 Elineth Torres

 Voluntary Measures –Kathryn Watson – Chair of Voluntary, Partnership 

 and Community Based Program Workgroup 

1:00 – 3:30 Permits/NSR/Toxics

 Discussion of GHG BACT Report 

Oct 6 -Clean Air Act Advisory Committee 

Full Committee Meeting 

8:00- 8:30 Registration

8:30 – 9:20 Welcome/Opening Comments

 U.S. EPA Office of Air And Radiation 

 Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy 

9:20 – 9:35 Member Introductions and CAAAC Operating Principles 

 Pat Childers 

9:35 – 11:00 Voluntary and Community Programs – 

 Report Out and Vote on Recommendations – Kathryn Watson – Chair of 

 Voluntary, Partnership and community Based Program Workgroup 

11:00 – 11:30 Subcommittee Report Outs

 Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee Report Out 

 Economic Incentives and Regulatory Innovation 

11:30 – 12:45 Lunch 

12:45 – 3:00 BACT Workgroup Update 

 Report out and Vote on Report from BACT/GHG update - 

 Workgroup Chairs 

3:00 – 3:25 Clean Air Excellence Awards Program Update 

 Ashlea Page and Pat Childers 

3:25 – 3:45 Public Comments 

 

3:45 – 4:15 Future Topics/ Next meeting/Close 

 Pat Childers
**Exhibit 21**

**Subsidiaries of Globix Corporation as of September 30, 2005**

 

| **Name of Subsidiary**                       | **State/Country of****Incorporation/Organization** |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                         |                                               |
| ATC Merger Corp.                             | New York                                           |
| BLP Acquisition LLC                          | New York                                           |
| 415 Greenwich GC, LLC                        | New York                                           |
| 415 Greenwich GC Tenant LLC                  | New York                                           |
| 415 Greenwich MM LLC                         | New York                                           |
| Globix Holdings (UK) Limited                 | England and Wales                                  |
| Globix Limited                               | England and Wales                                  |
| GLX Leasing Limited                          | England and Wales                                  |
| Globix Denmark ApS                           | Denmark                                            |
| Globix (Netherlands) BV                      | Netherlands                                        |
| Globix Internet Services GmbH                | Austria                                            |
| Globix GmbH                                  | Germany                                            |
| Globix AB                                    | Sweden                                             |
| NEON Communications, Inc.                    | Delaware                                           |
| NEON Optica, Inc.                            | Delaware                                           |
| NorthEast Optic Network of Connecticut, Inc. | Delaware                                           |
| NorthEast Optic Network of New York, Inc.    | Delaware                                           |
| NEON Securities Corp.                        | Massachusetts                                      |
| NEON Connect, Inc.                           | Delaware                                           |
| NEON Transcom, Inc.                          | Delaware                                           |

 

----
Opinion issued March 21 , 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 22 - 00376 - CV

——————————— SILVER GRYPHON, L.L.C. , Appella nt

V. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CWALT, INC. ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005 - 23CB, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005 - 23CB, MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005 - 23CB , Appell e e

On Appeal from the 165th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial C ourt Ca se No. 2016 - 84076
MEMORANDU M OPINION The parties have filed a joint motion to set aside the trial court’s judgment signed on February 17, 2022 , without regard to the merits and remand the case to2

the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.1(a)(2)(B). We grant the motion. Accordingly, w e set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See id . Any other pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly an d Goodman.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
OSullivan Industries, Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and that the information contained in such quarterly report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OSullivan
Industries, Inc.

|      |                   |  |                                      
|----- | ----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: | February 17, 2004 |  | /s/ Richard D. Davidson              
|      |                   |  |                                      
|      |                   |  | Richard D. Davidson                  
|      |                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

This
certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such
Act, be deemed to be filed by OSullivan Industries, Inc. for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that
OSullivan Industries, Inc. specifically incorporates it by reference.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
OSullivan Industries, Inc. and will be retained by OSullivan Industries, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2015

- 8464 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 050

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and th en out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

( @$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### CMR Task:

Operational Check

of the Propeller

Overspeed

Governor 0.3 $ 25.50 $0 $ 25.50 

### 82 $ 2,091.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 2,091



### Costs covered under warr anty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### 0.5 $ 42.50 

### 3 $ 42.50

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might no t be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alas ka. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
# Europeiska unionens C 15I/2016

| | ISSN 1977-1061 |
| --- | --- |
| Europeiska unionens
  officiella tidning | C 015I |
| | |
| Svensk utgåva | Meddelanden och upplysningar | 59 årgången16 januari 2016 |

ISSN 1977-1061

Europeiska unionens

officiella tidning

C 015I

Svensk utgåva

Meddelanden och upplysningar

59 årgången16 januari 2016

---

| Informationsnummer | Innehållsförteckning | Sida |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Upplysningar |
| | UPPLYSNINGAR FRÅN EUROPEISKA UNIONENS INSTITUTIONER, BYRÅER OCH ORGAN |
| | Rådet |
| 2016/C 015I/01 | Information om datum för tillämpningen av rådets förordning (EU) 2015/1861 om ändring av förordning (EU) nr 267/2012 om restriktiva åtgärder mot Iran och rådets genomförandeförordning (EU) 2015/1862 om genomförande av förordning (EU) nr 267/2012 om restriktiva åtgärder mot Iran | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Innehållsförteckning

Sida

IV   Upplysningar

UPPLYSNINGAR FRÅN EUROPEISKA UNIONENS INSTITUTIONER, BYRÅER OCH ORGAN

Rådet

2016/C 015I/01

Information om datum för tillämpningen av rådets förordning (EU) 2015/1861 om ändring av förordning (EU) nr 267/2012 om restriktiva åtgärder mot Iran och rådets genomförandeförordning (EU) 2015/1862 om genomförande av förordning (EU) nr 267/2012 om restriktiva åtgärder mot Iran

1

---

| SV | |
| --- | --- |

SV

---

IV Upplysningar

UPPLYSNINGAR FRÅN EUROPEISKA UNIONENS INSTITUTIONER, BYRÅER OCH ORGAN

Rådet

| 16.1.2016 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | CI 15/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2016

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

CI 15/1

---

Information om datum för tillämpningen av rådets förordning (EU) 2015/1861 om ändring av förordning (EU) nr 267/2012 om restriktiva åtgärder mot Iran och rådets genomförandeförordning (EU) 2015/1862 om genomförande av förordning (EU) nr 267/2012 om restriktiva åtgärder mot Iran

(2016/C 15 I/01)

Rådets förordning (EU) 2015/1861 (1) och rådets genomförandeförordning (EU) 2015/1862 (2) trädde ikraft den 19 oktober 2015.

I enlighet med artikel 2 andra stycket i förordning (EU) 2015/1861 och genomförandeförordning (EU) 2015/1862 ska dessa förordningar gälla från och med det datum som avses i artikel 2 andra stycket i rådets beslut (Gusp) 2015/1863 (3), dvs. från och med den dag då beslut (Gusp) 2015/1863 tillämpas.

I beslut (Gusp) 2016/37 (4), konstaterade rådet att villkoret för tillämpning av beslut (Gusp) 2015/1863 har uppfyllts och beslutade i enlighet därmed att beslut (Gusp) 2015/1863 ska tillämpas från och med den 16 januari 2016. Därmed tillämpas förordning (EU) 2015/1861 och genomförandeförordning (EU) 2015/1862 också från och med den 16 januari 2016.

---

(1)  EUT L 274, 18.10.2015, s. 1.

(2)  EUT L 274, 18.10.2015, s. 161.

(3)  Rådets beslut (Gusp) 2015/1863 av den 18 oktober 2015 om ändring av beslut 2010/413/Gusp om restriktiva åtgärder mot Iran (EUT L 274, 18.10.2015, s. 174).

(4)  Rådets beslut (Gusp) 2016/37 av den 16 januari 2016 om datum för tillämpningen av beslut (Gusp) 2015/1863 om ändring av beslut 2010/413/Gusp om restriktiva åtgärder mot Iran (EUT L 11 I, 16.1.2016, s. 1).

---
#### PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO. v. Clarence TORAN

85-198

702 S.W.2d 10

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered January 21, 1986

*Daily, West, Core, Coffman & Canfield,*by: *Wyman R. Wade, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Kincaid, Horne & Trumbo,*for appellee.

Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.

The sole issue we must address in this appeal is whether the appellant, Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., may enforce a provision in its group disability insurance policy which reduces the benefits to the appellee, Clarence Toran, by the amount of the Social Security payments he is entitled to receive because of his disability. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 29 (1)(c), to interpret Ark. Stat. Ann. § 66-3709 as amended in 1979.

*64We recently answered the same question under the 1975 version of § 66-3709 in *Milldrum*v. *Travelers Indemnity Co.,*285 Ark. 376, 688 S.W.2d 271 (1985), where we held that Act 900 of 1975 did not prohibit the insertion of a clause reducing benefits for Social Security payments. Although the 1975 Act was at issue in *Milldrum,*we inadvertently quoted language contained in Act 806 of 1979, an amended version of the same Act. The difference between these two enactments does not affect the decision in *Milldrum,*nor does it change the end result of this case.

Arkansas Stat. Ann. § 66-3709 as amended in 1979 controls this case because the appellee became disabled in 1980.

Section 1 of Act 806 of 1979 (§ 66-3709) states:

> “Section 1. No contract of group disability insurance as defined in Arkansas Statute 66-3701 including group contracts issued by Hospital and Medical Service Corporations as defined in Arkansas Statute 66-4908 hereafter sold, delivered or issued for delivery or offered for sale in this State shall contain any provision for the denial or reduction or [of] benefits because of the existence of other like insurance except to the extent that the aggregate benefits with respect to the covered medical expenses incurred under such policy or plan and all other like insurance with other insurers exceed all covered medical expenses incurred. The term “other like insurance” may include group or blanket disability insurance or group coverage provided by Hospital and Medical Service Corporations, government insurance plans, union welfare plans, employer or employee benefit organizations, or Workmen’s Compensation Insurance or no-fault automobile coverage provided for or required by any statute.”

The only change from the 1975 Act was the addition of “government insurance plans” in the list of prohibitions covered by the statute. In *Milldrum,*we said the “enumeration of various private insurance plans as constituting ‘other like insurance’ by implication excluded from the prohibition governmental social programs such as Social Security benefits.”

The trial judge’s interpretation of the statute, in light of our *65holding in *Milldrum,*is incorrect. Appellant should be allowed to reduce payment of benefits to appellee according to the policy’s provision and the judgment in favor of appellee, including the award of attorney’s fees, must be reversed.

Reversed.

Purtle, J., not participating.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 24, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10051 Summary Calendar

ROBERT MITCHELL ALEXANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CARY J. COOK, Assistant Warden; TERRY T. SLITTER,
Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(1:02-CV-72-C)

-------------------- Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Mitchell Alexander, Texas prisoner

No. 830440, appeals the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint. Alexander’s district court complaint
challenged the constitutionality of a prison disciplinary conviction, asserting that the defendants violated his right to

freedom of speech and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment by disciplining him for exercising his First Amendment rights.2

On appeal, Alexander has abandoned his argument that his disciplinary conviction is unconstitutional. Y ohey v. Collins , 985

F.2d 222, 224-25 (5 th Cir. 1993)(28 U.S.C. § 2254 case); F E D
. R.

A PP
. P. 28(a)(9)(A). His assertion of a First Amendment violation
is meritless. S ee Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union,

Inc. , 433 U.S. 11 9, 125 (1977); H ernandez v. Estelle , 788 F.2d
1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986). For the first time on appeal, Alexander argues that a delay in his receipt of medical treatment
violated the Eighth Amendment. As Alexander did not raise this claim in the district court, we review it for plain error, and we perceive none. S ee Kinash v. Callahan , 129 F.3d 736, 739 n.10 (5th
Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

LEANN JONES,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:17-cv-92

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

(Consent case)

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) GRANTING THE JOINT MOTION FOR REMAND 

(DOC. 13); (2) REMANDING THIS CASE TO THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THE 

FOURTH SENTENCE OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS; AND 

(3) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE COURT’S DOCKET

______________________________________________________________________________

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is presently before the Court on the parties’ 

joint motion to remand this case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings 

pursuant to the Fourth Sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. 13. Based upon the stipulation of 

the parties, and for good cause shown, the ALJ’s non-disability finding is REVERSED as

unsupported by substantial evidence and the parties’ joint motion for a Sentence Four remand 

(doc. 13) is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the Commissioner under the Fourth 

Sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. The Clerk is ORDERED to enter 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff and to TERMINATE this case on the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 25, 2017 s/ Michael J. Newman 

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge