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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8805 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8805

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify rules related to 
 rents received by real estate investment trusts from related parties.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 20, 2020

  Mr. Schneider (for himself and Mr. LaHood) 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 modify rules related to 
 rents received by real estate investment trusts from related parties.

    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 the ``Retail Revitalization Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF RULES RELATED TO RENTS RECEIVED BY REAL ESTATE 
              INVESTMENT TRUSTS FROM RELATED PARTIES.

    (a) Increase in Permissible Ownership Percentage.--Section 
856(d)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
striking ``10 percent or more'' each place it appears and inserting 
``more than 50 percent''.
    (b) Modification of Rules for Constructive Ownership of Stock.--
Section 856(d)(5) of such Code is amended--
            (1) by striking ```10 percent' shall be substituted for `50 
        percent''' in subparagraph (A) and inserting ```more than 50 
        percent' shall be substituted for `50 percent or more''',
            (2) by striking ``25 percent or more'' in subparagraph (B) 
        and inserting ``more than 50 percent'', and
            (3) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by 
        striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and 
        inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new 
        subparagraph:
                    ``(C) section 318(a)(5)(C) shall be applied by 
                substituting `paragraph (2) or (3)' for `paragraph 
                (2)'.''.
    (c) Modification of Rules for Taxable REIT Subsidiaries.--Section 
856(d)(8)(A)(i) of such Code is amended by striking ``90 percent'' and 
inserting ``50 percent''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0380

IN THE MATTER OF:

J.K.,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 16, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Jim Rice

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 7 2021

06/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0380
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8383 

To designate certain future interstates and high priority corridors in 

Kentucky, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 

Mr. GUTHRIE (for himself, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, and Mr. COMER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate certain future interstates and high priority 

corridors in Kentucky, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LOUIE B. NUNN (CUMBERLAND) PARKWAY. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION AS HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR.— 

5 Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

6 Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following: 

8 ‘‘(92) The Louie B. Nunn (Cumberland) Park9 way from the interchange with Interstate 65 in BarVerDate Sep 11 2014 18:42 Oct 21, 2020 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8383.IH H8383

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8383 IH

1 ren County, Kentucky, east to the interchange with 

2 U.S. Highway 27 in Somerset, Kentucky.’’. 

3 (b) DESIGNATION AS FUTURE INTERSTATE.—Sec4 tion 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transpor5 tation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by striking ‘‘and 

6 subsection (c)(91)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(91), and 

7 subsection (c)(92)’’. 

8 (c) NUMBERING OF PARKWAY.—Section 

9 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transpor10 tation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by adding at 

11 the end the following: ‘‘The route referred to in subsection 

12 (c)(92) is designated as Interstate Route I–365.’’. 

13 (d) OPERATION OF VEHICLES.—Section 127(l)(3)(A) 

14 of title 23, United States Code, is amended— 

15 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i) by strik16 ing ‘‘clauses (i) through (iv)’’ and inserting ‘‘clauses 

17 (i) through (v)’’; and 

18 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(v) The Louie B. Nunn (Cum20 berland) Parkway (to be designated as a 

21 spur of Interstate Route 65) from the 

22 interchange with Interstate 65 in Barren 

23 County, Kentucky, east to the interchange 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8383 IH

1 with U.S. Highway 27 in Somerset, Ken2 tucky.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
No. 12-98.

#### Delia, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services *v.*E. M. A., a Minor, By and Through Her Guardian ad Litem Johnson, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0172

CITY OF COLUMBIA FALLS,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BONME L. CHAPMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

FILED

APR 2 9 2020

Bowen Greenwtiod clerk of Suprerne Court Sthte of Montana

ORDER

The parties, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate and move for an order

remanding Flathead County Cause No. DC-18-416(D) to the Columbia Falls City Court with

instructions to strike the $335 fine from the November 1, 2018 Sentencing Order.

Defendant Bonnie L. Chapman appealed the fine to the Eleventh Judicial District Court, and

the District Court affirmed the fine.

Without agreeing with all the arguments advanced by Chaprnan, the

Attorney General's Office concedes that the City Court's imposition of the $335 fine was

illegal. Ms. Chapman's sole source of income is social security payments of $1,300.00 per

month. Under United States and Montana law, a court cannot order a defendant to pay a

court fine from social security benefits. State v. Eaton, 2004 MT 283, 323 Mont. 287,

99 P.3d 661. On this ground, the parties request this Court to remand the case for

compliance with 42 U. S.C. § 407(a) and United States Supreme Court caselaw.

Having reviewed, the parties' stipulation and motion to dismiss appeal with prejudice,

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Cause No. DC-18-416(D) is remanded to the

Columbia Falls City Court with instructions to strike the $335 fine from the

November 1, 2018 Sentencing Order.

04/29/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0172
There being no other issues remaining for consideration,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Chapman's appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to the

Honorable Dan Wilson, presiding District Court Judge.

Dated this Z 9 day of April, 2020.

2

Chief Justice
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elvin GUERRERO-MARADIAGA, also known as Elvin Orlando Guerrero-Marodiaga, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40756 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 15, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Elvin Guerrero-Maradiaga, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Elvin Guerrero-Maradiaga has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Guerrero-Maradiaga has filed two responses. To the extent that Guerrero-Maradiaga requests to proceed *pro se*or requests the appointment of new counsel, the requests are denied as untimely. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Guerrero-Mar-adiaga’s responses. We co'ncur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
##### 



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 UST Liquidating Corporation. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Barry S. Rosenstein, Co-Chairman of Board of Directors 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:  (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/ Barry S. RosensteinBarry S. RosensteinCo-Chairman of Board of DirectorsMay 16, 2005
#### PHILADELPHIA PROFESSIONAL COLLECTIONS, LLC, Respondent v. Elaine MICKMAN, Petitioner

No. 317 EAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

December 27, 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of December, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 895 

To allow tribal grant schools to participate in the Federal Employee Health 

Benefits program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2019 

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the 

Committees on Oversight and Reform, and Energy and Commerce, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To allow tribal grant schools to participate in the Federal 

Employee Health Benefits program. 

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 ‘‘Tribal School Federal 

5 Insurance Parity Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 895 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN HEALTH CARE IM2 PROVEMENT ACT. 

3 Section 409 of the Indian Health Care Improvement 

4 Act (25 U.S.C. 1647b) is amended by inserting ‘‘or the 

5 Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2501 

6 et seq.)’’ after ‘‘(25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.)’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 12216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6474]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
[Docket No. 96N-0497]


I. D. Russell Co. Laboratories; Withdrawal of Approval of NADA

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval 
of a new animal drug application (NADA) held by I. D. Russell Co. 
Laboratories. The NADA provides for use of 10 percent sulfaquinoxaline 
powder for making animal feed and 20 percent sulfaquinoxaline liquid. 
The sponsor requested the withdrawal of approval because the products 
are no longer being marketed.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dianne T. McRae, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine (HFV-102), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., 
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1623.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. D. Russell Co. Laboratories, 1301 Iowa 
Ave., Longmont, CO 80501, is the sponsor of NADA 6-776, which provides 
for use of 10 percent sulfaquinoxaline powder for feed and 20 percent 
sulfaquinoxaline liquid. I. D. Russell Co. Laboratories requested that 
FDA withdraw approval of NADA 6-776 because the products are no longer 
being marketed.
    Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food 
and Drugs (21 CFR 5.10) and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary 
Medicine (21 CFR 5.84), and in accordance with Sec. 514.115 Withdrawal 
of approval of applications (21 CFR 514.115), notice is given that 
approval of NADA 6-776 and all supplements and amendments thereto is 
hereby withdrawn, effective March 24, 1997.

    Dated: February 3, 1997.
Stephen F. Sundlof,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 97-6474 Filed 3-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David G. PFLUM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-3130

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed March 2, 2018

(D.C, No. 5:14-CR-40062-DDC-l) (D. Kansas.)

*803Christine E. Kenney, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

David G. Pflum, Pro Se

Before MORITZ, McKAY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge

David G. Pflum, proceeding pro se 1 appeals the judgment entered against him after a jury convicted him of tax evasion and attempting to interfere with the administration of internal revenue laws. *See'*26 U.S.C. §§ 7201 & 7212(a). He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and to pay more than $8 million in restitution. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

Mr. Pflum contends he is not obligated to pay taxes to the federal government. In his brief to this court, he states:

> The essence of this case is this Court’s (1) dereliction of its duty to know, understand, and declare the law with respect to the controlling definition of the meaning of the word “United States,” as legislated by Congress 26 U.S.C 7701(a)(9) and 28 U.S.C. 3002(15), and the United States Constitution. Article III Sect. 2, (2) denigration of Pflum for exclusive reliance on and usage of said controlling definition and meanings of all of Pflum’s filings, (3) insistence that the Court, a court of *general*jurisdiction has authority to hear and decide cases in geographic area fixed by the Constitution exclusively for courts of *special*jurisdiction; specifically Pottawatomie County, Kansas.

Aplt. Br. 9-10 [sic throughout].

We have reviewed Mr. Pflum’s brief and found no reasoned support for these arguments, which we conclude are utterly mer-itless. *See Ford v. Pryor,*552 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.2 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Such tax-protestor arguments have long been held to be lacking in legal merit and frivolous.”); *Lonsdale v. United States,*919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990) (listing tax-protestor arguments that courts have found “completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous”).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed, and all pending motions, including Mr. Pflum’s motions to dismiss and to release, are denied as moot.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1

. We liberally construe Mr. Pflum’s pro se pleadings. *See Childs v. Miller,*713 F.3d 1262, 1264 (10th Cir. 2013).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the Form 10-K for the twelve months ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          4,927
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0 
<PP&E>                                      2,604,919
<DEPRECIATION>                                129,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              2,805,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                       861,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                   240,210
<COMMON>                                       92,634
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,207,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                2,805,686
<SALES>                                       335,060 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              355,662
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 175,944 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               90,879
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                3,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             61,153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                53,534
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            53,534
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   53,534
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.65
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED              SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                           JUNE 30, 1996    JUNE 30, 1997   JUNE 30, 1996    JUNE 30, 1997
                                           -------------    -------------   -------------    ------------- 
<S>                                        <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>         
Net Income                                  $  528,989       $8,472,114       $3,712,382       $13,029,810

Weighted average number of                                                                           
common shares outstanding (A)                9,200,000        9,200,000        9,200,000         9,200,000
                                            ----------       ----------       ----------       -----------
Per share amount                            $     0.06       $     0.92       $     0.40       $      1.42
                                            ==========       ==========       ==========       ===========
Pro forma net income                        $  332,989       $6,177,114       $2,338,382       $ 9,049,810

Weighted average number of                                                                           
common shares outstanding (A)                9,200,000        9,200,000        9,200,000         9,200,000
                                            ----------       ----------       ----------       -----------
Pro forma per share amount                  $     0.04       $     0.67       $     0.25       $      0.98
                                            ==========       ==========       ==========       =========== 
</TABLE>


(A)  Excludes 38,410 stock options to purchase common shares at $2.39 per share
     granted in February 1997, as inclusion of the effect of these options in
     the earning per share calculation would not be material.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****    - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский 

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

        - Student Loans
        - Grants
        - Laws
        - Data

# Statement from U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on New COVID-19 Vaccine Eligibility for Children Ages 5 and Younger 

# Statement from U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on New COVID-19 Vaccine Eligibility for Children Ages 5 and Younger 

June 18, 2022

**Contact:  **press@ed.gov

                                    -        
U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona issued the following statement regarding COVID-19 vaccine eligibility for children ages 5 and younger:

“Today, parents and families of about 20 million children in America under age five received news that their babies, toddlers, and preschoolers are now eligible for COVID-19 vaccines. This is a historic milestone in our nation’s recovery from the pandemic, and it will provide so many parents and families who have been waiting for this moment with more peace of mind about keeping their children safe and healthy. The Biden-Harris administration will take a whole-of-government approach to ensuring that every parent and caregiver who wants to secure a vaccine for their child is able to do so through pediatricians, primary care doctors, and other trusted healthcare providers, including community health centers and pharmacies. These vaccines are safe and will help save lives.”
   -  Tags: CoronavirusPress Releases
          How Do I Find...?    - Student loans, forgiveness
- Higher Education Rulemaking
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms
- More...
      Information About...    - Elevating Teaching
- Early Learning
- Engage Every Student
- Unlocking Career Success
- Cybersecurity
Search press releasesSearch for:      Find By Month    - February 2024 
- January 2024 
- December 2023 
- November 2023 
- October 2023 
- September 2023 
- August 2023 
- July 2023 
- June 2023 
- May 2023 
- April 2023 
- March 2023 
- All Press Releases
             
*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
- Student Loans
- Repaying Loans
- Defaulted Loans
- Loan Forgiveness
- Loan Servicers
- Grants & Programs
- Apply for Pell Grants
- Grants Forecast
- Apply for a Grant
- Laws & Guidance
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- Civil Rights
- IDEA Website
- Data & Research
- Education Statistics
- Postsecondary Education Data
- ED Data Express
- Nation's Report Card
- What Works Clearinghouse
- Open Data Platform
- COVID Relief Data
- About Us
- Contact Us
- ED Offices
- Jobs
- Press Releases
- FAQs
- Recursos en español
- Budget, Performance
- Privacy Program
- Homeroom Blog
- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information Quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov