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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6290 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6290

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain tax 
   incentives for biodiesel, renewable diesel, and alternative fuels.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2016

Mr. Valadao (for himself and Mr. Costa) 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 extend certain tax 
   incentives for biodiesel, renewable diesel, and alternative fuels.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL INCENTIVES.

    (a) Income Tax Credit.--
            (1) In general.--Subsection (g) of section 40A of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 
        31, 2016'' and inserting ``December 31, 2018''.
            (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
        shall apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2016.
    (b) Excise Tax Incentives.--
            (1) In general.--Section 6426(c)(6) of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``December 31, 2016'' and inserting ``December 31, 
        2018''.
            (2) Payments.--Section 6427(e)(6)(B) of such Code is 
        amended by striking ``December 31, 2016'' and inserting 
        ``December 31, 2018''.
            (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
        shall apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2016.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EXCISE TAX CREDITS RELATING TO ALTERNATIVE FUELS.

    (a) Extension of Alternative Fuels Excise Tax Credits.--
            (1) In general.--Sections 6426(d)(5) and 6426(e)(3) of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking 
        ``December 31, 2016'' and inserting ``December 31, 2018''.
            (2) Outlay payments for alternative fuels.--Section 
        6427(e)(6)(C) of such Code is amended by striking ``December 
        31, 2016'' and inserting ``December 31, 2018''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered June 28, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00946-CR

TIONA EVANS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-55243-Q

ORDER

The Court GRANTS the June 25, 2013 request of the Dallas County District Clerk for an 

extension of time to file the supplemental clerk’s record in this appeal. 

We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the 

date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs 

assessed in the case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed 

attorney fees. In accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 103.001, the cost 

bill shall be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive 

payment for the cost. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a 

document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court 

appointed attorney fee.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF **

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER **

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|   | 1. | Such                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending August 31,                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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for                the year ending August 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                Global Transport Technologies, Inc. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                January 11, 2008                                                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| */s/*Lord                Dr. Masaaki Ikawa                                                                        |
| Lord                Dr. Masaaki IkawaChief                Executive OfficerChief                Financial Officer |

----
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed July 14, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-0981

Lower Tribunal No. 19-1694

________________

Juan D. Whipple,

Appellant,

vs.

Crystal Ferguson Dawson, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rosa C. 

Figarola, Judge.

Juan D. Whipple, in proper person.

William C. Robinson, for appellees.

Before SCALES, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s appeal from the order determining homestead status of 
2

real property is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the final order was 

not timely appealed. See Steele v. Brown, 197 So. 3d 106, 110 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 2016) (holding that order determining homestead status “constituted an 

appealable, final order”). The remaining orders on appeal are affirmed. See

Rhodes v. State, 986 So. 2d 501, 513 (Fla. 2008) (“To be preserved, the 

issue or legal argument must be raised and ruled on by the trial court.”) 

(alteration in original); John Moriarty & Assocs. of Fla., Inc. v. Thyssenkrupp 

Elevator Corp., 272 So. 3d 464, 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“In the absence of 

a transcript of the lower court proceedings, and finding no legal error 

apparent on the face of the order . . . we cannot conclude the trial court 

erred in rendering the order under review and therefore affirm.”); N & D 

Holding, Inc. v. Town of Davie, 17 So. 3d 819, 821 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“It 

is the appellant’s duty to point out where in the record the alleged error can 

be substantiated.”).

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Part 1
          - [TD 9960]
          - RIN 1545-BP79

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Correction to a correction of a Treasury Decision.

# SUMMARY:

                        This document corrects a correction to a final regulations (Treasury Decision 9960) published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Tuesday, February 22, 2022. The final regulations concern the treatment of domestic partnerships for purposes of determining amounts included in the gross income of their partners with respect to foreign corporations.                    

# DATES:

These corrections are effective on March 11, 2022, and applicable on or after February 22, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward J. Tracy at (202) 317-6934 (not a toll-free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

The final regulations (TD 9960) subject to this correction are issued under section 958 of the Internal Revenue Code.

## Need for Correction

As published on February 22, 2022 (87 FR 9445), the final regulations (TD 9960) contain errors that need to be corrected.

## Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication of the correction to a final regulation (TD 9960), which was the subject of FR Doc. 2022-03611, published on February 22, 2022 (87 FR 9445), is corrected to read as follows:

1. On page 9445, first column, under the caption RIN, the language “1545-BO59” is corrected to read “1545-BP79”.

                    2. On page 9445, first column, the subject heading, the language                           ( print page 13936)                        “Guidance on Passive Foreign Investment Companies” is corrected to read “Guidance Under Section 958 on Determining Stock Ownership”.                

Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor,

Chief, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).

[FR Doc. 2022-05177 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Blake ELLIS, Also Known as “Jealous”, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11538 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 10, 2017

Brian W. Portugal, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, *367Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ronald Gordon Couch, Law Office of Ronald G. Couch, Colleyville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM:*

Jeffrey Ellis was convicted of one charge of conspiring to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 240 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. He maintains that the district court erred by denying him the sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and imposing the adjustment for obstruction of justice.

Ellis has shown no clear error in connection with the- imposition of the U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 adjustment for obstruction of justice. *See United States v. Juarez-Duarte,*513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008). The presentence report, on which the district court was entitled to rely, set forth facts leading to a reasonable inference that Ellis had tried to intimidate a codefendant. *See United States v. Alaniz,*726 F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir. 2013); *United States v. Caldwell,*448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006). In light of those facts, the conclusion that Ellis obstructed justice is plausible and is not clearly erroneous. *See Juarez-Duarte,*513 F.3d at 208; U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment.(n.4(A)). Ellis also has not shown that his is the exceptional case in which a defendant who receives the § 3C1.1 adjustment for obstruction of justice should also receive the U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) reduction for acceptance of responsibility. *See United States v. Chung,*261 F.3d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zaid Abdul WAKIL, AKA Alvin Boatright, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50380

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 4, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed October 27, 2017

L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Robert Barron, Timothy James Searight, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ— *686Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carlton Gunn, Esquire, Attorney, Kaye, McLane, Bednarski *&*Litt, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Zaid Wakil appeals his jury conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and three counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

1. Wakil did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel because the district court failed to ensure that he understood the possible penalties he faced. *See United States v. Erskine,*355 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth the conditions that need to be met in order for a *Faretta*waiver to be deemed valid).

2. Contrary to the government’s suggestion, remand is inappropriate. In limited circumstances, we may remand if “the record suggests that there is additional evidence available about the adequacy of a waiver.” *United States v. Kimmel,*672 F.2d 720, 722 (9th Cir. 1982). But remand is the exception, not the rule, and it is not appropriate here because nothing in the record suggests that there are undiscovered facts showing that Wakil was aware of the possible penalties at the time of his waiver. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for a new trial.

3.It is unnecessary to reach Wakil’s remaining claims in light of the disposition of this case.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Freddie Eugene CASEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director VADOC; Sgt. Large, Correctional Sergeant; Messer, C/O; Barton, C/O; Mead, C/O; Gibson, C/O; Young, C/O; Nurse Wood, Institutional Nurse, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6008

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Freddie Eugene Casey, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica Leigh Berdichevsky, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for the Appellees.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Freddie Eugene Casey appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim and exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Casey v.*Clarke, No. 7:15-cv-00689-JPJ-RSB, 2016 WL 7030973 (W.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2016). 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*
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1225

Directorate Identifier: 2009NM257 AD

FIREFIGHTING ENT ASS 26-115 --- 9/09

Name/Description of item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. Sw.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 am and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Dale: 03/0512008
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 81 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 81

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit for the 
      purchase of child restraint systems used in motor vehicles.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit for the 
      purchase of child restraint systems used in motor vehicles.

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

SECTION 1. CREDIT FOR PURCHASE OF CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS.

    (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to nonrefundable 
personal credits) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
section:

``SEC. 25A. PURCHASE OF CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM.

    ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual, there shall be 
allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the 
taxable year an amount equal to the costs incurred by the taxpayer 
during such taxable year in purchasing a qualified child restraint 
system for any child of the taxpayer.
    ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
            ``(1) Qualified child restraint system.--The term 
        `qualified child restraint system' means any child restraint 
        system which meets the requirements of section 571.213 of title 
        49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
            ``(2) Child.--The term `child' has the meaning given to 
        such term by section 151(c)(3).''
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart A of 
part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 25 the 
following new item:

                              ``Sec. 25A. Purchase of child restraint 
                                        system.''
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1994.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of Chief
Financial Officer

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Pure Bioscience (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Andrew J. Buckland, Chief Financial Officer 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.

|              |                                                                  
|------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|June 12, 2007 | /s/ Andrew J. Buckland
Andrew J. Buckland
Chief Financial Officer
# EUR-Lex - 32001R2048 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R2048

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2048/2001 of 19 October 2001 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables **

*
Official Journal L 277 , 20/10/2001 P. 0001 - 0002 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2048/2001

of 19 October 2001

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98(2), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 October 2001.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 October 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.

(2) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 4.

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 19 October 2001 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

>TABLE>