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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6495 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that low alcohol 

by volume kombucha is exempt from any excise taxes and any regulations 

under chapter 53 of such Code which are imposed on alcoholic beverages. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2023 

Mr. BLUMENAUER 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 ensure 

that low alcohol by volume kombucha is exempt from 

any excise taxes and any regulations under chapter 53 

of such Code which are imposed on alcoholic beverages. 

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 ‘‘Keeping Our Manufac5 turers from Being Unfairly taxed while Championing 

6 Health Act’’ or ‘‘KOMBUCHA’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6495 IH

1 SEC. 2. TAX-FREE PRODUCTION OF LOW ALCOHOL BY VOL2 UME KOMBUCHA. 

3 (a) EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON WINE.—Section 

4 5042(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(4) LOW ALCOHOL BY VOLUME KOMBUCHA.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to regulations 

8 prescribed by the Secretary, low alcohol by vol9 ume kombucha shall not be subject to— 

10 ‘‘(i) tax as wine, or 

11 ‘‘(ii) the provisions of subchapter F. 

12 ‘‘(B) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this 

13 chapter, the term ‘low alcohol by volume 

14 kombucha’ means a beverage which— 

15 ‘‘(i) is fermented solely by a symbiotic 

16 culture of bacteria and yeast, 

17 ‘‘(ii) contains not more than 1.25 per18 cent of alcohol by volume, 

19 ‘‘(iii) is sold or offered for sale as 

20 kombucha, and 

21 ‘‘(iv) is derived from— 

22 ‘‘(I) fermentable sugars, includ23 ing sugar, malt or malt substitute, 

24 honey, and fruit juice, and 

25 ‘‘(II) plant materials, including 

26 tea and coffee.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6495 IH

1 (b) EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON BEER.—Section 5053 

2 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

3 (1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection 

4 (j), and 

5 (2) by inserting after subsection (h) the fol6 lowing new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(i) PRODUCTION OF LOW ALCOHOL BY VOLUME

8 KOMBUCHA.—Subject to regulations prescribed by the 

9 Secretary, low alcohol by volume kombucha (as defined in 

10 section 5042(a)(4)(B)) shall not be subject to— 

11 ‘‘(1) tax as beer, or 

12 ‘‘(2) the provisions of subchapter G.’’. 

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

14 this section shall apply to calendar quarters beginning 

15 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 10219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03821]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Time-Sensitive Obesity 
Policy and Program Evaluation Review.
    Date: March 22, 2022.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 2 Democracy, 6707 
Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Michele L. Barnard, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDDK, 
National Institutes of Health, Room 7353, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, (301) 594-8898, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#254744574b4457414865405d5157440b4b4c41414e0b4b4c4d0b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd9f9c8f939c8f9990bd9885898f9cd39394999996d3939495d39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 17, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03821 Filed 2-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Jose Leon ZAMORA, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-50345 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 12, 2017

Jose Leon Zamora, Pro Se

Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Leon Zamora, Texas prisoner # 672290, moves this court for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 matter and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 99 years of imprisonment.

“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). This court has jurisdiction over final decisions and other decisions covered by the collateral order doctrine. *See*28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; *Davis v. E. Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd.,*78 F.3d 920, 925-26 (5th Cir. 1996). Unless the parties have consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), an order issued by a magistrate judge is not a final order directly appealable to this court. *Donaldson v. Ducote,*373 F.3d 622, 624-25 (5th Cir. 2004). Zamora did not so consent. Although the district court reconsidered the magistrate judge’s ruling, Zamora did not file a notice of appeal from that decision or the denial of his § 2254 petition. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(2). We therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

Zamora’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and his COA motion and IFP motion are DENIED AS MOOT.

*

 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NATHANIEL WILLIAMS,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

CLAUDE E. FINN,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-16010

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01546-GEB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 10, 2010** 

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Nathaniel Williams appeals from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the loss of

good time credits following prison disciplinary proceedings for unlawful influence

of staff. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

AUG 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-16010

Williams contends that his due process rights were violated when he was

denied the opportunity to call four staff witnesses at the prison disciplinary

hearing. In light of the record, the witnesses’ proposed testimony was irrelevant

and any exclusion was harmless. Therefore, the California court’s determination

that Williams was afforded his due process rights was not contrary to, or an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(d)(1); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993); Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER
30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          44,648
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 3,299
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    946,466
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,587
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,595
<LOANS>                                      1,946,922
<ALLOWANCE>                                     25,753
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,044,586
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,779,547
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,034,096
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           154
<OTHER-SE>                                     230,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,044,586
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 71,343
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               30,800
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               102,143
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              39,754
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,132
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           36,257
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,020
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (359)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 26,892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,323
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      14,323
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,172
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        1
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       7
<LOANS-NON>                                     18,920
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                14,798
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                26,002
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,269
<RECOVERIES>                                        15
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               25,753
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            25,753
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
exhibit_10-29.htm








EXHIBIT 10.29






Further Lane, Inc.


84 Valley View Avenue


Ridgewood, NJ  07450







David McCarthy, Principal




 


February 29, 2012







RedFin Network, Inc.


Jeff Schultz, CEO


1500 West Cypress Creek Road


Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33309







 Invoice number – 001-2


 



	 Consulting Services -	Services.  Further Lane, Inc. hereby agrees to perform the services (the “Services”) set forth in the description of services (the “Description of Services”) in a professional manner consistent with industry standard practices.
	 	 
	 Compensation –	For a One-Year Consulting Engagement for Services, the amount payable to Further Lane is $25,000.00.  Please make all checks or wires payable to Further Lane, Inc., Citibank Account 9958951745, ABA # 021000089, Federal tax # 26-0587878.
	 	 
	 DescriptionofServices–	The Services shall include the following public relations, business intelligence, mergers and acquisition strategy, communications, and such other related services as shall be reasonably determined mutually by Further Lane and the Company’s President, Board of Directors or their respective designees from time to time:





 



	 	
i. 

	
Advisory services with respect to improving the image of the Company in theinvestment community and the market generally.













	 	
ii.

	
Advisory services with respect to improving the investment community’s and general market’s awareness of the Company and its businesses.








  





	 	
iii. 

	
Advisory services with respect to improving the content and presentation ofthe Company’s public communications (including press releases, presentations and other corporate communications).













	
  

	
iv.

	
Advisory services with respect to optimizing the Company’s capital structure to optimize the Company’s market value.













	
  

	
v.

	
Introductions to qualified institutional and retail investors and brokers worldwide who may have an interest in the Company and its business.











  





  











  









	 	
vi. 

	
Introductions to market makers who may have an interest in making amarket in the Company’s common stock.













	 	
vii. 

	
Introductions to accredited investors who may have an interest in makingprivate investments into the Company.












Please remit payment as soon as possible.







Sincerely,















David McCarthy


Further Lane, Inc.
#### In the Matter of John G. Lamberson, Appellant.

(Argued May 28, 1872;

decided June 4, 1872.)

*Samuel Hand*for the appellant.

*Stephen A. Walker*for the respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.
#### Bryan L. PARK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Dee ANDERSON, Sheriff Tarrant County; John Doe, I, Mansfield Corrections Officer; John Doe, II, Mansfield Corrections Officer Defendants-Appellees

No. 15-11068 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 6, 2017

Bryan L. Park, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bryan L. Park, Texas prisoner # 0441023, appeals the district court’s dis*232missal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. We review the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. *See Green v. Atkinson,*623 F.3d 278, 280 (6th Cir. 2010). “A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L,Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In his complaint, Park asserted that the defendants caused him pain and suffering by violating several of his civil rights, alleging, among other things, that the John Doe defendants used excessive force to arrest him and that Sheriff Dee Anderson was responsible, as a supervisor, for the inhumane treatment of the prisoners in his custody. Aside from mentioning a possible broken hand, Park did not provide the district court with any specific facts regarding the incident or incidents that led to his filing the complaint. Nor does he now provide any facts to support his general assertions that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. His mere conclu-sional allegations are not sufficient to raise a constitutional claim. *See Iqbal,*556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937; *Taylor v. Books a Million, Inc.,*296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, we do not consider facts alleged for the first time on appeal. *Varnado v. Lynaugh,*920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).

Because he does not challenge the district court’s determination that Sheriff Anderson could not be held liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability, Park has abandoned the issue. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). We conclude that Park has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. *See Green,*623 F.3d at 280. The district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Park is warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g). AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

(continued...)

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 28 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CYNTHIA STORER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA FE; SANTA FE

SOLAR HOMES; KEITH

MACDUFFEE; HOLLY HART,

Attorney; ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Consumer Protection Division; TINI

GARCIA; RISK MANAGEMENT OF

C.I.D.; ORLANDO MARTINEZ;

ED’S FLOOR; BRUCE BEERSGREEN; JOHN STEVER; KORTZ,

Journeyman; KISSENGER,

Journeyman; POND GENALD, 

Appraiser; AMREP; ECIA;

ELDORADO SUBDIVISION; THE

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT;

INTERSTATE LENDING

CORPORATION; FIRST

INTERSTATE MORTGAGE;

C. FRIEDMAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-2198

(D.C. No. CIV-96-1582-JC)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
*

(...continued)

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

-2-

Before TACHA, LOGAN, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

The district court, after finding plaintiff’s complaint incomprehensible,

granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted.1

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

We uphold a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) only when it

appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claims that would entitle [her] to relief, accepting the well-pleaded

allegations of the complaint as true and construing them in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff.

Yoder v. Honeywell Inc., 104 F.3d 1215, 1224 (10th Cir.) (quotation omitted),

cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 55 (1997). After our de novo review of the briefs,

pleadings, and record in this case, we agree with the district court that plaintiff’s

claims are incomprehensible and further conclude that this appeal is frivolous.
-3-

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New

Mexico is AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero 

Circuit Judge
|   | 1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                                                                                                                                               |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | 2)     | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company. |

|                                      |   |                                                   |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  April      6, 2009  | By:    | /s/      Richard M. Osborne                            |   |
|                                      |   | Richard      M. Osborne                                |   |
|                                      |   | Chairman of the Board and      Chief Executive Officer |   |

|                                      |   |                         |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  April      6, 2009  | By:    | /s/      C. Jean Mihitsch    |   |
|                                      |   | C.      Jean Mihitsch        |   |
|                                      |   | Chief Financial      Officer |   |

----