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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2714 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a credit against 

tax, or refund of tax, for certain Federal insurance taxes for employees 

who are members of religious faiths which oppose participation in such 

insurance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2019 

Mr. GIBBS (for himself and Mr. GONZALEZ of Ohio) 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 provide 

for a credit against tax, or refund of tax, for certain 

Federal insurance taxes for employees who are members 

of religious faiths which oppose participation in such 

insurance. 

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 ‘‘Act to exempt religious 

5 Members and Individuals from Social Security and 

6 Healthcare taxes Act’’ or the ‘‘AMISH Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2714 IH

1 SEC. 2. CREDIT OR REFUND OF CERTAIN FEDERAL INSUR2 ANCE TAXES FOR MEMBERS OF CERTAIN RE3 LIGIOUS FAITHS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6413 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(e) CREDIT OR REFUNDS OF CERTAIN FEDERAL IN8 SURANCE TAXES FOR MEMBERS OF CERTAIN RELIGIOUS

9 FAITHS.— 

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An employee who receives 

11 wages with respect to which the tax imposed by sec12 tion 3101 is deducted during a taxable year for 

13 which an authorization granted under this sub14 section applies shall be entitled (subject to the provi15 sions of section 31(b)) to a credit or refund of the 

16 amount of tax so deducted. 

17 ‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION FOR CREDIT OR RE18 FUND.—Any individual may file an application for 

19 authorization under this subsection if he is an indi20 vidual described in the first sentence of section 

21 1402(g)(1). Rules similar to the rules of 1402(g)(1) 

22 shall apply to the granting of such authorization and 

23 rules similar to section 1402(g)(2) shall apply with 

24 respect to the period for which such authorization is 

25 in effect.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2714 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply with respect to taxable years begin3 ning after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
No. 10-521.

#### Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, Colo*751rado, Petitioner v. Rocky Mountain Christian Church, et al.

562 U.S. 1136, 131 S. Ct. 978,

178 L. Ed. 2d 750,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 558.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 613 F.3d 1229.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      10,523,174
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,140,804
<ALLOWANCES>                                    85,493
<INVENTORY>                                  8,544,155
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,651,815
<PP&E>                                      11,865,622
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,639,559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              91,166,158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,517,374
<BONDS>                                     81,521,850
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,536,254
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,089,378
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                91,166,158
<SALES>                                     33,015,561
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,015,561
<CGS>                                       20,578,794
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,737,747
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               400,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   814
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,294,345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,711,316
<INCOME-TAX>                                   139,966
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,571,350
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              4,616,363
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,045,013
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-7042.

#### John J. Tauro, Petitioner v. Max Baer, et al.

562 U.S. 1144, 131 S. Ct. 915,

178 L. Ed. 2d 764,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 262,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 395 Fed. Appx. 875.
No. 10-6551.

#### LaVern Berryhill, Petitioner v. James Hardy Payne, Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, et al.

562 U.S. 1107, 131 S. Ct. 849,

178 L. Ed. 2d 554,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9775.

December 13, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SS. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350),
the undersigned, Corey M. Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities 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.


/S/ COREY M. HOROWITZ
------------------------------------
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN
AUGUST 13, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35208-35209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17185]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project Nos. 1984-056 Wisconsin and 11162-002 Wisconsin]


Wisconsin River Power Company, Wisconsin Power and Light Company; 
Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment

June 23, 1998.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) 
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the application for new major 
license for the Petenwell-Castle Rock Hydroelectric Project located on 
the Wisconsin River in Woods, Juneau, and Adams Counties near Necedah, 
Wisconsin, and the application for original major license for the 
Prairie du Sac Hydroelectric Project located on the Wisconsin River in 
Sauk and Columbia Counties near Prairie du Sac, Wisconsin, and has 
prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the proposed 
licensing actions. In the DEA, the Commission's staff has analyzed the 
potential environmental impacts of the proposed licenses, and has 
concluded that approval of the proposed licenses, with appropriate 
measures, would not constitute major federal actions significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the DEA are available for review in the Public Reference 
Branch, Room 2A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
    Comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this 
notice and should be addressed to David P. Boergers, Acting Secretary, 
Federal

[[Page 35209]]

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426. Please affix Project No. 1984-056 to all comments on the 
Petenwell-Castle Rock Project, and Project No. 11162-002 to all 
comments on the Prairie du Sac Project. For further information, please 
contact Peter A. Leitzke at (202) 219-2803.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17185 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
SCWC-11-0001078

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ANTHONY SANTIAGO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-11-0001078; CR. NO. 10-1-1319)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

The Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on May 16,

2013 by Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Anthony Santiago is hereby

accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be

held in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move

for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 28, 2013.

Stuart N. Fujioka, /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

for petitioner 

 /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

 /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

 

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

 /s/ Richard W. Pollack

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-11-0001078

28-JUN-2013

11:34 AM
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 31, 2016

No. 04-16-00532-CV

FRANKLIN ADVISERS, INC., on behalf of certain investment funds managed by it, Oz 

Management LP, on behalf of certain investment funds managed by, Oz Management II LP, on 

behalf of certain investment funds managed by it, Benefit Street Partners, LLC, Et al,

Appellants

v.

IHEARTCOMMUNICATIONS INC., f/k/a Clear Channel Communications, Inc.,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-04006

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee's Unopposed Motion in Support of Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael N. 

Nemelka is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 10-5627.

#### In re Russell Ray Pryor, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 825, 131 S. Ct. 329,

178 L. Ed. 2d 257,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7709.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. 10-6396.

#### Talakkottur R. David, Petitioner v. Fidelity Investments, et al.

562 U.S. 1054, 131 S. Ct. 603,

178 L. Ed. 2d 453,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8916,

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17328]



[[Page 35585]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-622-000]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

June 24, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 16, 1998, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National Fuel), 10 Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York 
14203, filed a request with the Commission in Docket No. CP98-622-000, 
pursuant to Sections 157.205, and 157.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to 
construct and operate a new sales tap authorized in blanket certificate 
issued in Docket No. CP83-4-000, all as more fully set forth in the 
request on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    National Fuel proposes to construct and operate a new sales tap for 
delivery of approximately 60 Mcf per hour of gas with a maximum 
capacity of approximately 183 Mcf per hour to National Fuel Gas 
Distribution Corporation. National Fuel states that the proposed sales 
tap would be located on its Line V-M194 in Jefferson County, 
Pennsylvania. National Fuel estimates the cost of construction would be 
$100,000.
    National Fuel further states that this addition is not prohibited 
by its existing tariff, that there is sufficient capacity to accomplish 
deliveries without determent or disadvantage to other customers, that 
its peak day and annual deliveries would not be effected and that the 
total volumes deliveries would not exceed the total volumes authorized 
prior to their request.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after the 
Commission has issued this notice, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or 
notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If 
no protest if filed within the allowed time, the proposed activity 
shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time 
allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 
within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant 
request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant 
to Section 7 of the NGA.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17328 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-6308.

#### Jorge Enrique Villa, Petitioner v. Arizona.

562 U.S. 1032, 131 S. Ct. 571,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8765.

178 L. Ed. 2d 418,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, denied.
#### Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-OPT1, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-OPT1, Appellant, v Paraskevi Varelis, Also Known as Paraskevi A. Varelis, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[54 NYS3d 703]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Baily-Schiffman, J.), dated October 29, 2014, which granted the motion of the defendant Paraskevi Varelis, also known as Paraskevi A. Varelis, pursuant to CPLR 3408 (f) to impose a sanction upon it for its failure to negotiate in good faith.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing and a new determination of the motion to impose a sanction upon the plaintiff thereafter.

The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Paraskevi Varelis, also known as Paraskevi A. Varelis (hereinafter the defendant), seeking to foreclose a mortgage on the defendant’s home in Brooklyn. As mandated by CPLR 3408 (a), the plaintiff and the defendant participated in settlement conferences for the statutorily intended purpose of determining whether they could reach a “mutually agreeable *935resolution” (CPLR 3408 [f]). After the parties failed to reach a resolution, the defendant moved, pursuant to CPLR 3408 (f), for an order imposing a sanction upon the plaintiff for failing to negotiate in good faith. The plaintiff opposed the motion. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion and imposed a sanction upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff appeals.

Here, the defendant sufficiently alleged that the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that the plaintiff failed to make a meaningful effort at reaching a resolution *(see CitiMortgage, Inc. v Pugliese,*143 AD3d 659, 662 [2016]; *LaSalle Bank, N.A. v Dono,*135 AD3d 827, 829 [2016]; *US Bank N.A. v Sarmiento,*121 AD3d 187, 203 [2014]). The defendant submitted evidence that demonstrated that the plaintiff, among other things, engaged in dilatory conduct by making piecemeal document requests, providing contradictory information, and repeatedly requesting documents which had already been provided *(see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Diakite,*148 AD3d 662 [2017]; *LaSalle Bank, N.A. v Dono,*135 AD3d at 828; *Onewest Bank, FSB v Colace,*130 AD3d 994, 996 [2015]). In opposition, the plaintiff submitted evidence which controverted the defendant’s account of the settlement negotiations. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have held a hearing to determine the issue *(see Onewest Bank, FSB v Colace,*130 AD3d at 996; *cf. LaSalle Bank, N.A. v Dono,*135 AD3d at 829). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing and a new determination of the defendant’s motion thereafter.

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.
No. 09-11352.

#### Chris C. Menefee, Petitioner v. Mike McDonald, Acting Warden.

562 U.S. 875, 131 S. Ct. 184,

178 L. Ed. 2d 110,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6707.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 810.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**














CERTIFICATION
      OF 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,
      William R. Walker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
      Report of hi/fn, inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2007
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report
      on
      Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of hi/fn, inc.







August
                8, 2007
            /s/
                WILLIAM R. WALKERWilliam
                R. WalkerChief
                Financial Officer
# C_2016383EN.01001201.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Merck v Commission

(Case T-470/13) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Error of law - Error of assessment - Imputability of infringements - Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Legal certainty - Reasonable time - Fines))

(2016/C 383/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented initially by B. Bär-Bouyssière, K. Lillerud, L. Voldstad, B. Marschall, P. Sabbadini, R. De Travieso, M. Holzhäuser and S. O, lawyers, M. Marelus, Solicitor, and R. Kreisberger and L. Osepciu, Barristers, and subsequently by B. Bär-Bouyssière, L. Voldstad, M. Holzhäuser, A. Cooke, M. Gampp, lawyers, M. Marelus, R. Kreisberger and L. Osepciu)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Bourke, F. Castilla Contreras and T. Vecchi, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Kingston, Barrister)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Generics (UK) Ltd (Potters Bar, United Kingdom) (represented initially by G. Drauz, M. Rosenthal and B. Record, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Drauz and M. Rosenthal)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck), and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Merck KGaA to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Merck KGaA to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Generics (UK) Ltd to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Generics (UK) Ltd to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

1

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1217 

KA 10-00520 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

LERAE YVONNE SMITH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW B. POWERS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny

M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered January 26, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court