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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6757 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit the rollover 

contributions from Roth IRAs to designated Roth accounts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. LAHOOD (for himself and Ms. SA ́NCHEZ) 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 permit 

the rollover contributions from Roth IRAs to designated 

Roth accounts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ROLLOVER CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ROTH IRAS 

4 TO DESIGNATED ROTH ACCOUNTS. 

5 (a) TREATMENT AS ROLLOVER DISTRIBUTION FOR

6 PURPOSES OF ROTH IRA.—Section 408(d)(3)(A) of the 

7 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘; 

8 or’’ at the end of clause (i) and inserting a comma, by 

9 striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and inserting 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6757 IH

1 ‘‘, or’’ and by inserting after clause (ii) the following new 

2 clause: 

3 ‘‘(iii) the entire amount received (in4 cluding money and any other property) is 

5 paid in a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer 

6 from a Roth IRA to a designated Roth ac7 count (within the meaning of section 

8 402A).’’. 

9 (b) TREATMENT AS ROLLOVER CONTRIBUTION FOR

10 PURPOSES OF DESGINATED ROTH ACCOUNT.—Section 

11 402A(c)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by inserting ‘‘or 

12 under section 408(d)(3)(A)(iii)’’ after ‘‘subparagraph 

13 (A)’’. 

14 (c) COORDINATION WITH NONEXCLUSION PERIOD.— 

15 Section 402A(d)(2)(B) of such Code is amended— 

16 (1) by striking ‘‘earlier’’ in the matter pre17 ceding subclause (i) and inserting ‘‘earliest’’, 

18 (2) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (i), 

19 (3) by striking the period at the end of clause 

20 (ii) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and 

21 (4) by adding at the end the following new 

22 clause: 

23 ‘‘(iii) if a rollover contribution was 

24 made to the designated Roth account from 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6757 IH

1 a Roth IRA, the first taxable year in which 

2 such a rollover contribution was made.’’. 

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

4 this section shall apply to amounts paid or distributed 

5 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**EXHIBIT32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”),I, David W. Neibert, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

	(1)	TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Date:November 14, 2011

 

*/s/David W. Neibert*

		 

DavidW. Neibert

ChiefExecutive Officer

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concierge Technologies, Inc. and will beretained by Concierge Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

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

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of AAF-McQuay Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof, I, Ho Nyuk Choy, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the quarterly report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)the information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| /s/ Ho Nyuk Choy                       |   | February 7,  2002 |
|----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|
| Ho Nyuk Choy                           |   |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| (Principal  Executive Officer)         |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 3.3
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
OF
SUBURBAN PROPANE, L.P.
  1.
    
    The name of the limited partnership is Suburban Propane, L.P. (the
Partnership).
 2.
    
    The address of the registered office of the Partnership in the State of
Delaware and the name and address of the registered agent of the Partnership
required to be maintained by Section 17-104 of the Act at such address are as
follows:
 Name and Address of Registered Agent
    
    Address of Registered OfficeThe Corporation Trust Company
    
    Corporation Trust CenterCorporation Trust Center
    
    1209 Orange Street1209 Orange Street
    
    Wilmington, Delaware 19801Wilmington, Delaware 19801
 3.
    
    The name and business address of the General Partner is as follows:
 General Partner
    
    AddressSuburban Energy Services
    
    One Suburban PlazaGroup LLC
    
    240 Route 10 WestWhippany, New Jersey 07981
  SUBURBAN ENERGY SERVICES GROUP LLC,
General PartnerBy:
    /s/ MARK A. ALEXANDERMark A. AlexanderPresident
#### Josef MOSCHREF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kirk STRATTON, Chief of Police; Martin Corona, Officer; Town of Colma, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15306

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 12, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed September 14, 2017

*533Russell Alan Robinson, Counsel, Law Office of Russell A. Robinson, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Danielle Kono Lewis, Esquire, Attorney, Gregg Anthony Thornton, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: SILER,** TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Josef Moschref appeals the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Town of Colma, Chief of Police Kirk Stratton, and Officer Martin Corona. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review de novo the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. We affirm.

The district court did not err in concluding that Moschrefs First Amendment claims against Appellees, including his claim for retaliation, were barred by the doctrine of *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). To succeed in a § 1983 action, Moschref would have to show that Officer Corona’s statements—including the statement that Moschref was the driver of the car during the August 7, 2012, incident leading to his arrest—were false, which would necessarily, and impermissibly, imply the invalidity of Moschref's DUI conviction. *See Guerrero v. Gates,*442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting *Heck,*512 U.S. at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364).

The district court also properly dismissed Moschrefs claim for malicious prosecution. Moschref did not allege that the state court proceedings “terminated in such a manner as to indicate his innocence.” *Awabdy v. City of Adelanto,*368 F.3d 1062, 1068 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing *Heck,*512 U.S. at 484-85, 114 S.Ct. 2364). The felony charges based on his post-arrest conduct were simply dismissed as part of a negotiated plea deal, which culminated in Moschrefs DUI conviction.

Finally, the district court correctly dismissed Moschrefs claims under *Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York,*436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Because Moschref has not stated any underlying constitutional violations, his *Monell*claims necessarily fail.

Costs are awarded to the Appellees.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publi*534cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Civ. *No.*3020.

Second Appellate District, Division Two.

*November*3, 1919.]

#### JOHN R. GENTLE, Appellant, v. T. C. WARREN et al., Respondents.

[1] Deeds—Action to Set Aside—Weakness of Mind of Grantok— Finding—Evidence.-—In this action to set aside a deed on the ground that it was made as the result of fraud and undue influence exerted upon the grantor, and because her mind was in a weakened condition, the finding of the trial court that the mind of the grantor was in a sound, strong, and normal condition was supported by the plaintiff’s as well as the defendants’ evidence.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Fred H. Taft, Judge.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

C. A. Stice for Appellant.

H. E. Gleason and F. M. Shepard for Respondents.

THOMAS, J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff against defendants for the purpose of setting aside a certain deed made by one Anna Gentle, plaintiff’s deceased wife, to defendants, on the ground that it was made as the result of fraud and undue influence exerted upon the grantor, and because her mind was in a weakened condition—which defendants denied. The court found in favor of defendants on all the issues, and entered judgment accordingly. From the judgment so entered plaintiff appeals.

For a reversal of the judgment plaintiff attacks one of the findings as not supported by the evidence. That finding, so far as the same is objectionable to plaintiff, is as follows: “That it is not true that her mind was weakened and affected, or weakened or affected, on the ninth day of March, 1916, but the court finds that on the said ninth day of March, 1916, the mind of Anna J. Gentle was in a sound, strong, and normal condition.”

[1] No evidence has been called to our attention which shows that there is any conflict, so far as the condition of deceased’s mind is concerned. This is not only a case where *85there is evidence to support the finding, but the plaintiff’s own evidence, as well as defendants’, supports it, and for this reason we are unable to agree with the appellant’s contention.

No other point is urged.

Judgment affirmed.

Finlayson, P. J., and Sloane, J., concurred.
#### Samuel Morris, Appellant, *v.*Morton Coal Co., Inc., Respondent.

Argued June 15, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*584
      *Jay Leo Rothschild*for appellant.

*Samuel B. Stewart, Jr.,*and *George G. Tennant, Jr.,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We think this controversy is one that can be justly determined only through a trial. The judgments should be reversed and the motion denied, with costs in the Appellate Division and in this court.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.
EXHIBIT 10.3

                    New Employment Terms - Louis Scafuri


17 May 2000



Louis Scafuri
Chief Operating Office
ESC Medical System


                            New Employment Terms

Dear Lou:

Following your appointments as Chief Operating Officer we have agreed to
amend your employment terms as follows:

1.   Effective April 1, 2000 you will be entitled to a salary raise of 10%
     (i.e. $ 25,000 per annum). You may elect to accept this raise in the
     form of additional salary or as a car allowance.

2.   You will be entitled to the pro-rata share of your annual bonus for
     Q1,2000 (i.e. $ 50'000).

3.   Your bonus plan for the period April to December 2000 will be amended
     and will incorporate corporate sales and net income goals for this
     period as set out in the budget. Your bonus will be set according to
     the level of achievement:

  100% achievement of corporate sales and net income figures          $187,500
  110% achievement of corporate sales and net income figures          $262,500
  120% achievement of corporate sales and net income figures          $337,500
  125% or higher achievement of corporate sales and net income budget $375,000


   I welcome you to new position and wish you the best of success.


   Best Regards,


   Yacha Sutton
   CEO and president
Exhibit 32.01 
 CERTIFICATIONS 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, Andrew Hidalgo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of WPCS International Incorporated on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of WPCS International Incorporated.
 
 By:

/s/  ANDREW HIDALGODate: July 29, 2010

Name:

Andrew HidalgoTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
 
 I, Joseph Heater, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of WPCS International Incorporated on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of WPCS International Incorporated.
 
 By:

/s/  JOSEPH HEATERDate: July 29, 2010

Name:

Joseph HeaterTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
#### Roderick DEMMINGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35053

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*515Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017

Roderick Demmings, Pro Se

Clemens H. Barnes, Miller Nash Graham *&*Dunn, LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Pacific Maritime Association

Carson Flora, Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee ILWU Local 19

Carson Flora, Attorney, Seattle, WA, Christine Sue Hwang, Esquire, Attorney, Leonard Carder, LLP, Oakland, CA, Lindsay Rose Nicholas, Attorney, Leonard Carder, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kathleen Cahill Slaught, Counsel, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee ILWU Benefit Plans Office

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Demmings's request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Roderick Demmings appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his employment action alleging federal and state law claims arising fpom his requests for reinstatement in 2013. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. *Ramirez v. Galaza,*334 F.3d 850, 859 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Demmings’s action without granting Demmings leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint because further amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); *Chodos v. West Publ’g Co.,*292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“FWjhen a district court has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is particularly broad.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Because Demmings failed to make any arguments challenging the bases for the district court’s orders dismissing his claims, Demmings has waived any challenge to the dismissal of his claims. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

, We do not consider facts and allegations that Demmings raises for the first time on appeal. *See Ramirez,*334 F.3d at 859 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A] party may not raise new issues of fact on appeal after declining to present those facts before the trial court.”).

We reject as without merit Demmings’s contentions that the district court should have granted his request for an extension where the record reflects that the district court granted five extensions throughout the action.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
OF OFFICERS


OF
CYBERDEFENDER CORPORATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 USC § 1350











Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) each of the
undersigned officers of CyberDefender Corporation (the “Company”) does hereby
certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:







(a)
            Amendment
      No. 3 to the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
      2009 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
      or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and




(b)
            Information
      contained in Amendment No. 3 to the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.





Dated:
December 20, 2010











/s/ Gary
Guseinov


Gary
Guseinov


Chief
Executive Officer








/s/ Kevin
Harris


Kevin
Harris


Chief
Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.22



English summary of Hebrew language document:  Sub-Tenancy Lease Agreement between Nortel Networks Israel (Sales and Marketing) Ltd and AudioCodes Ltd dated 31 December 2002



The sub-tenancy agreement is subject to Nortels own tenancy agreement with its landlord.



Leased Property:  Approximately 8,813 square meters, forming part of building located in Airport City in Modiin municipal area as further detailed in the agreement, together with 300 parking spaces (250 open air parking spaces and 50 underground parking spaces) and use of shared facilities. AudioCodes has an option for an additional 50 parking spaces.



Commencement:  Upon completion and delivery of fittings and improvements, but not before July 1, 2003, and no later than October 1, 2003.



Price:  $5 to $9 per square meter per calendar month, depending on the amount expended by Nortel on fitting the premises to AudioCodes specifications and final measurement of premises. The price for parking is $50 per space in the open air parking area and $75 per space in the underground parking area.



Additional amounts: 17% for overhead and planning expenses for the fittings, items not included in technical specification.



All prices exclude all taxes and are converted to New Israeli Shekels (NIS) as of the commencement of the agreement and linked thereafter to changes in the Israeli Consumer Price Index.



Rent increase: After 60 months from delivery, any rent increase is to be negotiated or settled by arbitration. There is a minimum increase of 5%.



Duration: 120 months.  AudioCodes has an option to terminate after 60 months, upon 13 months advance notice of its intention to terminate, together with payment of 30% of the cost of fittings.



Fittings and refurbishment: Nortel or its landlord shall complete all building works and fittings to AudioCodes specifications and the technical specifications of the contract.



Restrictions on use: AudioCodes is permitted to conduct the business of a high tech company, including, but not limited to, offices, laboratories, warehouse, assembly and product repairs.



Options: AudioCodes has first refusal option over additional areas that are vacated in the building. Should Nortels tenancy be terminated, AudioCodes has an option from Nortels landlord to extend the lease and have a direct relationship (with possible price negotiation).



Security Deposit: AudioCodes is required to provide first demand autonomous bank guarantee for $573,000 (subject to adjustment depending on ultimate rental payments) in NIS and linked thereafter to changes in Israeli Consumer Price Index.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00210-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.B.K.-R., a child

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-00852

Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is AFFIRMED. No costs 

shall be assessed against appellant.

Manuel C. Rodriguez Jr.’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

SIGNED September 11, 2013.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
#### Benjamin Muhammad JONES Plaintiff-Appellant v. Kendrick NELSON, et al. Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-3150

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Filed: June 8, 2017

Benjamin Muhammad Jones, Pro Se

Ka Tina R. Hodge, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee Kendrick Nelson

Ka Tina R. Hodge, Renae Ford Hudson, Assistant Attorney Generals, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees Ray Hobbs, Andrew Ruh, James Shipman, Steven Outlaw, *456Keith Taylor, Keith Crockett, William F. Straughn, Connie Jenkins, Anthony Jackson, Maurice E. Williams, Linda D. Erw-ing, Gregory Socia, Willie Bankston

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Benjamin Muhammad Jones commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging that five correctional officers used excessive force and failed to protect Jones after relocating him when he intentionally flooded his cell. After lengthy pretrial proceedings, Jones’s claims were tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. Jones appeals, arguing the district court1 abused its discretion in denying his motion for appointment of trial counsel and in its evidentiary rulings at trial. On appeal, Jones filed a motion for preparation of a trial transcript at government expense, which we denied, a motion for appointment of appellate counsel, a principal brief, and a reply brief.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of counsel and in its evidentiary rulings at trial. We deny Jones’s motion for appointment of appellate counsel, as the appeal does not raise complicated legal or factual issues, see Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review); and we deny his motion to reconsider the denial of a trial transcript at government expense because the appeal is frivolous, see 28 U.S.C. § 753(f); Thompson v. Housewright, 741 F.2d 213, 216 (8th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Braun Consulting, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas A. Schuler, Senior Vice President (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/THOMAS A. SCHULERThomas A. Schuler Senior Vice President (Principal
Financial Officer)March 30, 2004 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks