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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6175 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny certain green energy 

tax benefits to companies connected to certain countries of concern. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Mr. MOOLENAAR (for himself, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. BOST, Mr. GIMENEZ, Mr. 

BERGMAN, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. HUIZENGA, Mr. DUNN of Florida, Mrs. 

STEEL, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr. STEUBE, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, 

Mrs. MCCLAIN, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. JAMES, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, and 

Ms. STEFANIK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny certain 

green energy tax benefits to companies connected to certain countries of concern. 

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 ‘‘No Official Giveaways 

5 Of Taxpayers’ Income to Oppressive Nations Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘NO GOTION Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6175 IH

1 SEC. 2. DENIAL OF GREEN ENERGY TAX BENEFITS TO COM2 PANIES CONNECTED TO COUNTRIES OF CON3 CERN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 77 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following new section: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 7531. DENIAL OF GREEN ENERGY TAX BENEFITS TO 

8 COMPANIES CONNECTED TO COUNTRIES OF 

9 CONCERN. 

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any disqualified 

11 company, this title shall be applied without regard to sec12 tions 30C, 40, 40A, 40B, 45, 45Q, 45U, 45V, 45W, 45X, 

13 45Y, 45Z, 48, 48C, 48E, 179D, 6426(c), 6426(d), 

14 6426(e), and 6427(e). 

15 ‘‘(b) DISQUALIFIED COMPANY.—For purposes of this 

16 section— 

17 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘disqualified com18 pany’ means— 

19 ‘‘(A) any entity created or organized in, or 

20 controlled (in the aggregate) by, one or more 

21 countries of concern, and 

22 ‘‘(B) any entity controlled (in the aggre23 gate) by one or more entities described in para24 graph (1). 

25 ‘‘(2) COUNTRIES OF CONCERN.—The term 

26 ‘countries of concern’ means the People’s Republic 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6175 IH

1 of China, Russia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, or 

2 the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 

3 ‘‘(3) CONTROL.—The term ‘control’ has the 

4 meaning given such term under section 954(d)(3), 

5 determined by treating the rules of section 958(a)(2) 

6 as applying to both foreign and domestic corpora7 tions, partnerships, trusts, and estates.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 for chapter 77 of such Code is amended by adding at the 

10 end the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 7531. Denial of green energy tax benefits to companies connected to 

countries of concern.’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
602 CAF 10-00597 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM C.B.

------------------------------------------ ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JUDY B., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

CHARLES J. GREENBERG, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. DAVID C. SCHOPP, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (CHARLES D. HALVORSEN OF COUNSEL), FOR WILLIAM C.B.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia A. Maxwell, J.), entered February 4, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order denied the motion of respondent to vacate the order terminating her parental rights. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Same Memorandum as in Matter of William C.B. ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Apr. 29, 2011]).

Entered: April 29, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 2 to the
Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 333-58296) and related prospectuses of
Insight Communications Company, Inc. for the registration of 5,000,000 shares of
its Class A Common Stock and certain other securities and the Registration
Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-57808) pertaining to the Insight Communications
Company, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan of our report dated March 12, 2001, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Insight Communications
Company, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000, as amended, included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K/A-3).


                                                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
June 11, 2001
STATE of Louisiana v. Jarvis BROWN

NO. 2017-KO-1145

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Louisiana June 1, 2018

Denied.
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.37





FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES CORPORATION 
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
(As Amended and Restated Effective as of May 4, 2016)
WHEREAS, CALIFORNIA RESOURCES CORPORATION (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the CALIFORNIA RESOURCES CORPORATION LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN, as amended and restated effective as of May 4, 2016 (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows:
1.    The fifth sentence of Section 5.8 of the Plan shall be deleted and the following shall be substituted therefor:
“Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Section 5.8, withholding taxes may be based on rates in excess of the minimum required tax withholding rates if the Committee (a) determines, with respect to an award granted to an Eligible Person who is not a non-employee Director, that such withholding would not result in adverse accounting, tax or other consequences to the Company or any Affiliate (other than immaterial administrative, reporting or similar consequences) and (b) authorizes withholding at such greater rates.”
2.    As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
J.J., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1483

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 26, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
#### Otilio Ostorga CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72889

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*592Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

.Robert G. Berke, Esquire, Attorney, Berke Law Offices, Canoga Park, CA, for Petitioner

Jamie M. Dowd, Esquire, Attorney, Bernard Joseph, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Otilio Ostorga Cruz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo constitutional claims. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ostorga Cruz’s motion to reopen, based on lack of notice, where Ostorga Cruz no longer disputes that he was personally served a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) that informed him of his obligation to update the court with a current address, and he failed to inform the court that the address listed on his NTA was no longer his current address. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (a motion to reopen in absentia proceedings based on lack of notice may be filed at any time); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B) (no notice of hearing required if the alien has failed to inform the government of a change in address).

Contrary to Ostorga Cruz’s contention, the agency did not err or violate due process by not providing the contents of the NTA in Spanish. *See Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft,*362 F.3d 1150, 1155 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Current law does not require that the Notice to Appear ... be in any language other than English.”); *Lata v. I.N.S.,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (an alien must show error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Chronimed Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Henry,
F. Blissenbach, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:

      (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/ HENRY F. BLISSENBACH
                                 -------------------------------------
                                  Henry F. Blissenbach
                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                  February 7, 2005
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Ariba, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Robert M. Calderoni, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James W. Frankola, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    ROBERT M. CALDERONIRobert M. Calderoni President and Chief Executive Officer




Date: May 14, 2004



/s/    JAMES W. FRANKOLAJames W. Frankola Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




Date: May 14, 2004
**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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of M~Wave,
      Inc.
      for the three months ended September 30, 2007, I, Jeff Figlewicz, Chief
      Financial Officer of M~Wave, Inc. do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





(1)
      such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2007,
      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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three
      months ended September 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the
      financial condition and results of operations of M~Wave, Inc.








Dated:  November
                14, 2007
            
            /s/
                Jeff FiglewiczJeff
                FiglewiczChief
                Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Caine Green, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 621]

*429Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Stone, J.), rendered June 14, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly granted the prosecutor’s request for a missing witness charge with respect to defendant’s wife, who was in a position to provide material, noncumulative testimony, in that the evidence established that she accompanied defendant throughout the time period at issue *(see People v Hagans,*306 AD2d 149 [2003]).

Even assuming that some of the prosecutor’s voir dire questions to prospective jurors about their knowledge of, and attitudes toward, drug trafficking were inappropriate *(see People v Byrd,*284 AD2d 201 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 679 [2001]), these questions could not have caused any prejudice to defendant. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
Shane OTERO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0425

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### Henderson et al. vs. The State.

Mr. Justice Scott

The two questions presented by this record, have been settled in the cases of *Fleteher and others vs. The State,*7 *Eng.*169, and *Washington vs. The State,*8 *Eng.*752. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Prairie county must be reversed, and the defendants discharged from prosecution.
**Exhibit32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Lorna Nagler, Chief Executive Officer ofChristopher & Banks Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

1.  Thequarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2008as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and

 

2.  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: July 10, 2008 |   |
|---------------------|--------|
|                |   |
|                | By:    | /s/ Lorna E. Nagler |
|                |   | Lorna E. Nagler |
|                |   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
#### Marc Pierre HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden C. J. HOLLAND, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6680

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Marc Pierre Hall, Appellant Pro Se.

*249Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges, •

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marc Pierre Hall, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Hall v. Holland,*No. 5:16-hc-02273-BO (E.D.N.C. May 17, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 30, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00776

- CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Javier MARTINEZ , Jr.,

Appellee

From the County Court

, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10205CR

Honorable Spencer W. Brown , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on January 30, 2019

.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on thi s 30th day of January, 2019

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
Antar SOSA and First Capital Land Trust No. 22067, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D16-2459

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 06, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6062 

To restore the ability of the people of American Samoa to approve amendments to the territorial constitution based on majority rule in a democratic act of self-determination, as authorized pursuant to an Act of 

Congress delegating administration of Federal territorial law in the territory to the President, and to the Secretary of the Interior under Executive Order 10264, dated June 29, 1951, under which the Constitution 

of American Samoa was approved and may be amended without requirement for further congressional action, subject to the authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause in article IV, section 3, clause 2 

of the United States Constitution. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To restore the ability of the people of American Samoa 

to approve amendments to the territorial constitution 

based on majority rule in a democratic act of self-determination, as authorized pursuant to an Act of Congress 

delegating administration of Federal territorial law in 

the territory to the President, and to the Secretary of 

the Interior under Executive Order 10264, dated June 

29, 1951, under which the Constitution of American 

Samoa was approved and may be amended without requirement for further congressional action, subject to 

the authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause 

2 

•HR 6062 IH

in article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the United States 

Constitution. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON AMENDMENTS 

4 TO OR MODIFICATIONS OF THE CONSTITU5 TION OF AMERICAN SAMOA. 

6 Section 12 of Public Law 98–213 (48 U.S.C. 1662a) 

7 is repealed. 

Æ
---

# Exhibit 99.1

# Statement of Chief Executive Officer of RARE Hospitality International, Inc.
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 RARE Hospitality International, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Philip J. Hickey, Jr., Chief Executive 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.

/s/ Philip J. Hickey, Jr.
-------------------------
Philip J. Hickey, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
November 13, 2002
Wayne ROBINSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1800

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 02, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
SOUTHERN FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Domingo POLANCO and Maria Polanco, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1266

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JULY 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         2,655
<SECURITIES>                                     482
<RECEIVABLES>                                    742
<ALLOWANCES>                                      74
<INVENTORY>                                       26
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,200
<PP&E>                                         1,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                   501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                10,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,326
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          23
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,396
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  10,789
<SALES>                                        4,924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,924
<CGS>                                          2,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  16
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,493
<INCOME-TAX>                                     583
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              910
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     910
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .35




</TABLE>