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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5463 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5463

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in 
the age of minor children whose unearned income is taxed as if parent's 
                                income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2006

Mrs. Musgrave 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 repeal the increase in 
the age of minor children whose unearned income is taxed as if parent's 
                                income.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF INCREASE IN THE AGE OF MINOR CHILDREN WHOSE 
              UNEARNED INCOME IS TAXED AS IF PARENT'S INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1(g)(2) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to child to whom subsection 
applies), as amended by the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation 
Act of 2005, is amended by striking ``age 18'' and inserting ``age 
14''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed November 18, 2013. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 00991

- CV

CARNEGIE HOMES & CON STRUCTION, LLC AND

ARPAN GUPTA A/K/A RA M A. GUPTA , Appellants

V.
FLOOR AND DECOR OUTL ETS OF AMERICA, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 04049



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Lang, and Fillmore Opinion b y Justice Fillmore
The Court has before it appellants’ November 14, 2013 motion to dismiss the appeal.

Appellants state that all issues between the parties have been fully and finally compromised and

settled. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a)(1).

130991F.P05 /Robert M. Fillmore/
ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CARNEGIE HOMES & CONSTRUCTION,
LLC AND ARPAN GUPTA A/K/A RAM A. GUPTA, Appellants

No. 05

- 13

- 00991

- CV V.

FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS OF AMERICA, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 04049. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore,
Justices FitzGerald and Lang participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. Subject to any agreement between the parties, we ORDER that appellee Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc. recover its costs of this appeal, if any, fro m appellants Carnegie Homes & Construction, LLC and Arpan Gupta a/k/a Ram A. Gupta.

Judgment entered this 18 th day of November, 2013.

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
John M. LOOMIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80402

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: June 26, 2018

Samuel E. Buffaloe, Columbia, MO, for appellant.

Karen L. Kramer, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division Three: Victor C. Howard, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

**ORDER**

Per curiam:

John Loomis appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Loomis argues that the motion court clearly erred in denying his motion because he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that trial counsel failed to *582move for a mistrial. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Harry Chew, President and Director of Bi-optic Ventures, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB of the Company for the period ended November 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

Date:  January 14, 2004



/s/  Harry Chew



Harry Chew, President and Director
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1253

___________

Louis Anthony Mealer, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Service Vending Co., Inc., a Missouri * Appeal from the United States

corporation; Jerry Sumners, Sr., * District Court for the Western

individually and as an agent of * District of Missouri.

Service Vending Co., Inc.; *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendants-Appellees, *

*

Credit Bureau Services of Missouri, *

Inc., a Missouri corporation, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2001

Filed: January 4, 2002

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Louis Anthony Mealer brought claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and

common law claims of invasion of privacy against Service Vending Co. and Jerry
*

The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

-2-

Sumners, Sr. A jury found in Mealer’s favor on the claims against Sumners, but not

against Service Vending. Mealer then sought about $66,000 in attorney’s fees.

Because Mealer did not break out the rate of compensation for the attorneys or

support staff, the district court*

 sorted through the list of all legal services provided

and determined the different rates requested. Mealer also lumped all hours expended

together, so the district court separated out the hours for each person involved in the

litigation. Next, the district court reviewed Sumner’s objections that certain hours

billed were unreasonable, and specifically addressed the granted objections. The

court also disallowed certain costs. The court then subtracted the unreasonable hours

and calculated the lodestar amount as $45,851.87 for fees and costs. After reviewing

the factors that could require the amount to be adjusted upward or downward stated

in Winter v. Cerro Gordo County Conservation Bd., 925 F.2d 1069, 1074 n.8 (8th Cir.

1991), the district court found the award was excessive given the lack of difficulty or

novelty, the limited success, and the amount of awards in similar cases. The court

reduced the fee award, finding a total award of $26,538.87 would fully compensate

Mealer’s attorneys. The court later denied Mealer’s motion to amend or alter the

award. 

On appeal, Mealer contends the district court abused its discretion in reducing

both the hourly rate and the number of hours in calculating attorney’s fees. He also

argues the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to alter or amend

the judgment. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court

did not abuse its discretion in arriving at the fee award or in denying Mealer’s motion.

Because we have nothing to add to the district court’s explanations, we affirm on the

basis of the district court’s orders. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the result and the judgment.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
NUMBER 13-21-00433-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

WILMER LOJA, M.D.,

WILMER E. LOJA, M.D., P.A., AND

WILMER E. LOJA AND ASSOCIATES, P.A, Appellants,

v.

MALLORY COTTON AND

JERAMY BRIDGES, INDIVIDUALLY,

AND AS NEXT FRIENDS,

NATURAL PARENTS, AND AS

WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARIES

OF BABY BOY BRIDGES, Appellees.

 

On appeal from the 103rd District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides
2

This cause is before the Court on appellants’ unopposed motions to lift the 

abatement, reinstate the case, and dismiss the appeal. We grant the motions, lift the 

abatement, reinstate the case, and dismiss the appeal.

“In accordance with a motion of appellant, the court may dismiss the appeal or 

affirm the appealed judgment or order unless such disposition would prevent a party from 

seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled.” TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1. Attached to 

the appellants’ motion is a dismissal order signed by the trial court on August 3, 2023,

stating that the parties have agreed to extinguish the controversy between them in toto. 

“Appeals of some interlocutory orders become moot because the orders have been 

rendered moot by subsequent orders.” Hernandez v. Ebrom, 289 S.W.3d 316, 319 (Tex. 

2009). “A case is moot when a justiciable controversy no longer exists between the parties 

or when the parties no longer have a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Tex. 

Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs. v. N.J., 644 S.W.3d 189, 192 (Tex. 2022). “A case may 

become moot at any time, including on appeal.” Id. When an appeal becomes moot, we 

must dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. Id. (citing Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 

S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012); see also Betancourt v. Cotton, No. 13-22-00132-CV, 2022 

WL 1414502, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg May 5, 2022, no pet.) (mem. 

op.).

Upon review of the motions to lift the abatement, reinstate the appeal, and dismiss, 

the Court is of the opinion that the motions should be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(a)(1). Therefore, this cause is reinstated, the motion to dismiss is granted, and the 

appeal is hereby dismissed. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs will 
3

be taxed against the party incurring the same. See id. R. 42.1(d). Having dismissed the 

appeal at appellants’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained.

GINA M. BENAVIDES

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

17th day of August, 2023.
CHARLESTON.

#### Irene Jones *et al*v. James J. Price, Administrator, etc., *et al.*

(No. 6427)

Submitted February 19, 1929.

Decided February 26, 1929.

*H. D.*Rollins, for appellants.

Hatcher, Judge:

This is a suit brought by the widow and children of James S. Jones, deceased, ag'ainst his administrator. Its purpose is to recover from the administrator the proceeds of a U. S. Adjusted Service Certificate in favor of the deceased. The administrator seeks to pay the debts of the estate out of the *56proceeds. Tbe circuit court found in favor of tbe administrator.

In tbe first instance, tbis certificate is not properly a part of tbe decedent’s estate and tbe administrator was not entitled to collect it. Under tbe express provisions of section 661 of title 38 Mason’s U. S. Code, Ann., the amount of tbe adjusted service credit in sucb case, *shall be paid,*not to the veteran’s estate, but *to his dependents,*tbe widow being preferred.

In tbe second place *the*sum payable to tbe dependents is expressly exempted by section 618 of same title from “attachment, levy or seizure under any legal or equitable process.” It is settled law, that as payments sucb as tbis are mere bounties which tbe government may grant or withhold at pleasure, Congress may surround these gratuities with such conditions as it deems proper to impose. *Hissem*v. *Johnson,*27 W. Va. 644, 652; *Kellog*v. *Waite Tr.,*94 Mass. (12 Allen), 529, 530; *U. S.*v. *Hall,*98 U. S. 343, 357. In discussing an exempting phrase similar to tbe one above, tbe court said in *Hissem*v. *Johnson, supra:*“Tbe exemption here declared is absolute and unqualified.” Congress has manifestly intended to so surround this fund with protection that creditors cannot take it away from dependents. It was well said in a recent Iowa decision: “In other words, during tbe course of human events, tbe thought became developed among states and nations that for tbe good of mankind there are instances when it is best that creditors go unpaid in order that certain individuals in society may have a particular source of income dedicated to personal or family sustenance, maintenance and enjoyment.” *Andrew*v. *Bank,*219 N. W. 62, 64. Congress having dedicated tbis bounty exclusively *to*tbe dependents of tbe decedent, tbe administrator is without any authority whatsoever to divert it to bis creditors. See, generally, *Crotty*v. *Eden,*35 W. Va. 143.

Tbe decree of tbe circuit court is accordingly reversed and tbe cause remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5434 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5434

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 2006

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, as the ``Larry Cox Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LARRY COX POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Larry Cox Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Larry Cox 
Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 12, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION

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

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Sean R. Stover, as Chief Financial Officer of NextMedia Operating, Inc.
(the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



Dated: November 13, 2003



/s/    SEAN R. STOVERSean R. Stover Chief Financial Officer of the Company




A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS
WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO NEXTMEDIA OPERATING, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY NEXTMEDIA OPERATING, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
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

The undersigned, Shane McMahon, Chairman of YOU ON DEMAND
HOLDINGS, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

1.      The Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and

2.       Information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement
this 26th day of February, 2014.

| | /s/
      Shane McMahon      
| | -----------------------------
| | Shane McMahon                
| | Chairman                     
| | (Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to YOU On Demand Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by
YOU On Demand Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
No. 09-8664.

#### Christopher Prince, Petitioner v. William Lee, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.

559 U.S. 1014, 130 S. Ct. 1899,

176 L. Ed. 2d 377,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2659.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Darlene DOUGHERTY, Respondent, v. Andrew HOWARD, et al., Appellants.

No. ED 105158

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: March 27, 2018

Stephen C. Banton, Ellisville, MO, for appellant.

Brendan D. Roediger, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Andre Howard1 and E3 Properties2 appeal the judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of Darlene Dougherty. We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

1

It was brought out during trial that the individual appellant's name is actually "Andre Howard" and filings with the name "Andrew Howard" contained a typo. Because no filings have been made with this Court or the trial court to correct this error, our official caption refers to "Andrew Howard" in order to be consistent with the trial court's judgment and the Missouri Case.net entries. For simplicity, we will refer to Mr. Howard as "Howard."

2

Howard is the owner of E3 Properties.
FANNIE MAE v. PRICE

257P16-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

William Gerald Price, For Price, William Gerald.

Natasha M. Barone, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, For Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of June 2019 by Defendant to Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

Davis, J. recused
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      OF ANNUAL REPORT**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Alpha
      Nutraceuticals, Inc.(the “Company”), certifies that:




1.  The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31,
      2004
      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




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







September
      20, 2006








By:
            /s/Mark
                L. Baum
              Mark
                L. Baum
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer





This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
      purpose.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 50041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20114]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, September 13, 2013.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance, Examinations, and Enforcement 
Matters. In the event that the time, date, or place of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at 
http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melissa D. Jurgens, 202-418-5516.

 Natise Stowe,
 Executive Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2013-20114 Filed 8-14-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Report (as defined under the preceding Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, Christian Baha,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Quadriga Capital Management, Inc., the
general partner of (Quadriga Superfund, L.P. (the "Fund"), 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 Fund.

                       By: /s/ Christian Baha
                       ------------------------------
                       Christian Baha
                       President and Chief Executive Officer
                       November 11, 2004

                                       E-4