alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5946 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income any prizes or awards won in competition in the Olympic Games or the Paralympic Games. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5946 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Appre3 ciation for Olympians and Paralympians Act of 2016’’. 

4 SEC. 2. OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC MEDALS AND USOC 

5 PRIZE MONEY EXCLUDED FROM GROSS IN6 COME. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 74 of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following new subsection: 

10 ‘‘(d) EXCEPTION FOR OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC

11 MEDALS AND PRIZES.— 

12 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Gross income shall not in13 clude the value of any medal awarded in, or any 

14 prize money received from the United States Olym15 pic Committee on account of, competition in the 

16 Olympic Games or Paralympic Games. 

17 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION BASED ON ADJUSTED GROSS

18 INCOME.— 

19 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) shall 

20 not apply to any taxpayer for any taxable year 

21 if the adjusted gross income (determined with22 out regard to this subsection) of such taxpayer 

23 for such taxable year exceeds $1,000,000 (half 

24 of such amount in the case of a married indi25 vidual filing a separate return). 
3 

•HR 5946 EH

1 ‘‘(B) COORDINATION WITH OTHER LIMITA2 TIONS.—For purposes of sections 86, 135, 137, 

3 199, 219, 221, 222, and 469, adjusted gross in4 come shall be determined after the application 

5 of paragraph (1) and before the application of 

6 subparagraph (A).’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall apply to prizes and awards received after 

9 December 31, 2015. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5946 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

Paralympic Games. won in competition in the Olympic Games or the exclude from gross income any prizes or awards
#### Eric E. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1207

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 14, 2017

Decided: April 20, 2017

*258Eric E. Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eric E. Miller appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for failure to comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Miller v. Supreme Court of VA,*No. 3:15-cv-00744-HEH (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2017). We deny the motion for change of venue and 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.

*DISMISSED*
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
 
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act
of 2002, I, Barry Bennett, Chief Executive Officer of Advanced
ID Corporation (the “Company"), hereby certify, that to the best of
my knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 Date:
June 7, 2005
 
 /s/Barry
I. Bennett
 Barry I.
Bennett, Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6988 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6988

To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the enforcement of 
             certain court ordered property distributions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2024

 Mr. D'Esposito (for himself, Mr. Costa, Mr. Carson, Mr. Swalwell, Mr. 
 Grijalva, Mr. Lawler, and Ms. Sanchez) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the enforcement of 
             certain court ordered property distributions.

    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 ``Jane's Law''.

SEC. 2. SPOUSAL OBLIGATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 11A of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in the chapter heading by inserting ``AND SPOUSAL 
        OBLIGATION'' after ``CHILD SUPPORT''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 228A. Failure to pay legal spousal court-ordered property 
              distribution
    ``(a) Offense.--Whoever knowingly, travels in interstate or foreign 
commerce, with the intent to evade compliance with a court ordered 
property distribution shall be imprisoned for not more than two years, 
fined under this title, or both.
    ``(b) Mandatory Restitution.--Upon a conviction under this section, 
the court shall order restitution under section 3663A in an amount 
equal to the total unpaid amount under the court ordered property 
distribution.
    ``(c) Definition.--The term `court ordered property distribution' 
means an amount of more than $5,000 determined under a court order 
pursuant to the law of a State or of an Indian tribe to be due to a 
spouse or former spouse as an equitable or other distribution of assets 
in connection with a separation or divorce.''.
    (b) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
beginning of chapter 11A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:

``228A. Failure to pay legal spousal court ordered property 
                            distribution.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6729 

To permit the use of NATO and major non-NATO ally dredge ships in 

the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2023 

Mr. MOYLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To permit the use of NATO and major non-NATO ally 

dredge ships in the United States. 

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 ‘‘Allied Partnership and 

5 Port Modernization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DREDGING; DREDGED MATERIAL. 

7 (a) DREDGING.—Section 55109 of title 46, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘or (c)’’ after 

10 ‘‘subsection (b)’’; 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6729 IH

1 (2) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub2 section (d); and 

3 (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(c) DREDGING BY NATO-AFFILIATED VESSELS.— 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A vessel described in para7 graph (2) may engage in dredging in the navigable 

8 waters of the United States. 

9 ‘‘(2) VESSELS.—A vessel described in this para10 graph is a vessel— 

11 ‘‘(A) documented under the laws of a coun12 try that is a member of the North Atlantic 

13 Treaty Organization; 

14 ‘‘(B) built by a country that is a member 

15 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or a 

16 major non-NATO ally (as defined in section 

17 2350a(i) of title 10); and 

18 ‘‘(C) for which a majority of the owners 

19 and operators of the vessel are entities incor20 porated in a country that is a member of the 

21 North Atlantic Treaty Organization.’’. 

22 (b) EXCLUDING DREDGED MATERIAL FROM TRANS23 PORTATION REQUIREMENTS.— 

24 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 55110 of title 46, 

25 United States Code, is amended— 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6729 IH

1 (A) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘OR

2 DREDGED MATERIAL’’ and inserting ‘‘(EX3 CLUDING DREDGED MATERIAL)’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘or dredged material’’ and 

5 inserting ‘‘(excluding dredged material)’’. 

6 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The analysis 

7 for chapter 551 of title 46, United States Code, is 

8 amended by striking the item relating to section 

9 55110 and inserting the following: 

‘‘Sec. 55110. Transportation of valueless material (excluding dredged material).’’. 

Æ 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Isiah JAMES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN RIDGELAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Jon Ozmint, Respondent.

No. 16-7692

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 24, 2017

Isiah James, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tommy Evans, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICE, Columbia, South Carolina; Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Isiah James, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The *294order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that James has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We deny James’ motion to stay and 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.

*DISMISSED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antwon STUCKEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-16888 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(June 20, 2017)

Arthur Lee Bentley, III, Josephine W. Thomas, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Howard C. Anderson, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, Rosemary Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before TJOFLAT, HULL, and WILLIAM PRYOR Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Godfrey, appointed counsel for Antwon Stuckey, in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant, because, in his opinion, the appeal is without merit. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Stuckey’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6991 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6991

   To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans 
  Affairs in Wyandotte County, Kansas City, Kansas, as the ``Captain 
                      Elwin Shopteese VA Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2024

  Mr. LaTurner (for himself, Ms. Davids of Kansas, Mr. Estes, and Mr. 
    Mann) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans 
  Affairs in Wyandotte County, Kansas City, Kansas, as the ``Captain 
                      Elwin Shopteese VA Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF CAPTAIN ELWIN SHOPTEESE VA CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The outpatient clinic of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs located at 9201 Parallel Parkway, Kansas City, Kansas, 
shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 
designated as the ``Captain Elwin Shopteese Department of Veterans 
Affairs Clinic'' or the ``Captain Elwin Shopteese VA Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the outpatient 
clinic referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the Captain Elwin Shopteese VA Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of TOMBSTONE,  INC. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Neil A. Cox,  Chief
Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



Date: March 24, 2008


By:      /s/ Neil A. Cox
         --------------------------------
         Neil A. Cox
         Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.1

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1
 TO
 MOLSON COORS BREWING COMPANY
 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

 

The Molson Coors Brewing Company (the “Company”) Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:

 

Article 4.1 is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

 

“4.1                         Number of Shares Available for Awards.

 

(a)                                  Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4.4 herein, the maximum number of Shares available for issuance to Participants under the Plan (the “Share Authorization”) shall be 20,000,000 Shares, plus the number of Shares that remain available for issuance under the Adolph Coors Company Equity Incentive Plan as of the Effective Date (increased by any Shares subject to any then-outstanding award under such plan which upon the lapse, expiration or cancellation exercise or other settlement of such award are either not issued or are withheld by the Company and adjusted for the two-to-one stock split on October 3, 2007).

 

(b)                                 Subject to the limit set forth in Section 4.1(a) on the number of Shares that may be issued in the aggregate under the Plan, the maximum number of Shares that may be issued pursuant to ISOs shall be 20,000,000.”

 

Except as modified herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
#### Sylvester McChesney, Resp’t, v. The Panama R. R. Co., App’lt.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Mayham, J., not acting.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, David Hallonquist, Chief Executive Officer of Play LA Inc., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report of Play LA Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.







March 23, 2007

/s/David Hallonquist

Date

David Hallonquist,

Chief Executive Officer
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



 
 

EXHIBIT 10(c)(2)    
    
    Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement    
  



        On July 24, 2001, CDEX-Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), Dynamic Management
Resolutions LLC (the "Provider") and the undersigned individuals noted as "Consultant" (individually called a
"Consultant" and collectively the "Consultants") entered into a Consultant Services Agreement.
Section 14.6 of that Agreement provided for Amendment thereto with the written consent of all the parties. Section 14.4 provided for Assignment of the Agreement in limited circumstances. 



        For
good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged by all Parties to this Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement, the undersigned being the Parties to
the aforementioned Consultant Services Agreement do hereby agree to amend that Consultant Services Agreement by altering the assignment provisions of Section 14.4 to allow assignment of that
Consultant Services Agreement as to each individual Consultant with the written consent of that Consultant and Company. 


        Counterparts.    This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which
shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. 


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Amendment, or have caused this Amendment to be duly executed on their behalf effective as of January 1, 2002. 



	

By:	

 	
 	

By:	

 
	 	
 Wade Poteet

Dynamic Management Resolutions, LLC	 	 	
 Malcolm H. Philips, Jr.

CDEX Inc. Corp.
	

By:	

 	
 	

By:	

 
	 	
 Wade Poteet
 Consultant	 	 	
 Michael Mergenthaler
 Consultant
	

By:	

 	
 	

By:	

 
	 	
 Larry Spiers
 Consultant	 	 	
 Harold Cauthen
 Consultant




1









QuickLinks


EXHIBIT 10(c)(2) Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement