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

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 35 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 35

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create an above the line 
          deduction for certain homeowners insurance premiums.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 8, 2025

  Mr. Scott of Florida 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 create an above the line 
          deduction for certain homeowners insurance premiums.

    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 ``Homeowners Premium Tax Reduction Act 
of 2025''.

SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

    (a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating section 224 
as section 225 and by inserting after section 223 the following new 
section:

``SEC. 224. HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

    ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--In the case of an individual, there 
shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal to so much of the 
qualified insurance premiums paid or incurred during the taxable year 
as does not exceed $10,000.
    ``(b) Qualified Insurance Premiums.--For purposes of this section, 
with respect to an individual, the term `qualified insurance premiums' 
means annual policy premiums paid or incurred for homeowners insurance 
with respect to the principal residence of the individual.
    ``(c) Principal Residence.--For purposes of this section, the term 
`principal residence' has the same meaning as when used in section 
121.''.
    (b) Deduction Allowed in Determining Adjusted Gross Income.--
Section 62(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
inserting after paragraph (21) the following new paragraph:
            ``(22) Homeowners insurance premiums.--The deduction 
        allowed by section 224.''.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part VII of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking the item relating to section 224 and by inserting 
after the item relating to section 223 the following new items:

``Sec. 224. Homeowners insurance premiums.
``Sec. 225. Cross reference.''.
    (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>
```
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

                  WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                        FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
           OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
              AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH RULE 13A-14(b)
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.

In connection with the Annual Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund III
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
the Company respectively, each hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
such officer's knowledge, that: (a) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 filed on the date hereof 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 (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                             -----------------------------------
                                             George S. Springsteen
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             March 31, 2006


                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Kimberly A. Springsteen
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             March 31, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
IV 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 46 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to exclude employees 

of the offices of Members who serve on certain committees of the House 

from the allotment of the number of employees of the office who may 

hold security clearances processed by the Office of House Security if 

such employees are members of the armed forces who hold a security 

clearance issued by the Department of Defense, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2025 

Mr. MILLS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

exclude employees of the offices of Members who serve 

on certain committees of the House from the allotment 

of the number of employees of the office who may hold 

security clearances processed by the Office of House 

Security if such employees are members of the armed 

forces who hold a security clearance issued by the Department of Defense, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 46 IH 

1 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN HOUSE EMPLOYEES 

2 WHO ARE MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES 

3 FROM ALLOTMENT OF NUMBER OF EMPLOY4 EES OF MEMBER OFFICE WHO MAY HOLD SE5 CURITY CLEARANCES PROCESSED BY THE 

6 OFFICE OF HOUSE SECURITY. 

7 Rule XXIX of the Rules of the House of Representa8 tives is amended by adding at the end the following new 

9 clause: 

10 ‘‘5.(a) If an employee of the office of a Member, Dele11 gate, or Resident Commissioner described in paragraph 

12 (c) is a member of the armed forces who holds a security 

13 clearance issued by the Department of Defense, the em14 ployee shall not be included in determining the allotment 

15 of the number of employees of the office who may hold 

16 security clearances processed by the Office of House Secu17 rity. 

18 ‘‘(b) The level of the security clearance of an em19 ployee of an office who is described in paragraph (a) may 

20 not exceed the lower of— 

21 ‘‘(1) the level of the clearance held by the em22 ployee which was issued by the Department of De23 fense; or 

24 ‘‘(2) the highest clearance level which may be 

25 sponsored by the office for its employees. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 46 IH 

1 ‘‘(c) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 

2 described in this paragraph is a Member, Delegate, or 

3 Resident Commissioner who serves on any of the following 

4 Subcommittees or Committees of the House of Represent5 atives: 

6 ‘‘(1) The Subcommittee on Defense of the Com7 mittee on Appropriations. 

8 ‘‘(2) The Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

9 of the Committee on Appropriations. 

10 ‘‘(3) The Subcommittee on State, Foreign Op11 erations, and Related Programs of the Committee on 

12 Appropriations. 

13 ‘‘(4) The Committee on Armed Services. 

14 ‘‘(5) The Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

15 ‘‘(6) The Committee on Homeland Security. 

16 ‘‘(7) The Permanent Select Committee on Intel17 ligence.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SOUTHERNHERITAGE BANCSHARES, INC.**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO*****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Southern Heritage Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Lee Stewart,President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(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 ofthe Company.

 

 
| /s/ J. Lee Stewart |   |
|--------------------|--------|
| J. Lee Stewart     |
| President          |
| November  14, 2007 |

 

----
#### John L. Early, *Appellant,*v. R. B. Aarons et al., *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 21, 1927.

*John L. Early,*for Appellant;

No appearance for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
- 606 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S 296 N ebraska R eport STATE v . ARTIS Cite as 296 Neb. 606



### S tate of 

### N ebraska 

### , appellee 

### , v



### .

T

areik 

### Q. A rtis 

### , appella ___ N.W.2d ___
Filed May 5, 2017. No. S-16-464.

suppleme n tal opi n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: L or 

### A

. M aret 

### , Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinio modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Robert Wm. Chapin, Jr., for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, Sarah E. Marfisi, and Nathan A. Liss for appellee.

H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., W right 

### , M iller



### - L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , K el c h 

### , and F u n ke 

### ,

P er 

### C uriam 

### Case No. S-16-464 is before this court on the appel

lee’s motion for rehearing concerning our opinion in State v. Artis

. 1 

### We overrule the motion, but we modify the original opinion as follows: In the section entitled “V. ANALYSIS,” under subheading “ 2. P lai n 

### E rror 

### ,” subsection “(a) Arti Sentence Is Indeterminate,” we withdraw the third and fourth sentences of the single paragraph of that subsection, which now reads:

1 State v. Artis, ante p. 172, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2017). Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 05/05/2017 08:13 AM CDT- 607 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S 296 N ebraska R eport STATE v . ARTIS Cite as 296 Neb. 606



### (a) Artis’ Sentence

Is Indeterminate [9-12] The State has mischaracterized Artis’ sentence of “not less than 2 years, nor more than 2 years” as a determinate sentence. A determinate sentence is imposed when the defendant is sentenced to a single term of years, such as a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment. See State v. White , 256 Neb. 536, 590 N.W.2d 863 (1999). In contrast, when imposing an indeterminate sentence, a sentencing court ordinarily articulates either a minimum term and maximum term or a range of time for which a defendant is to be incarcerated. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Reissue 2016); State v. White, supra . In Nebraska, the fact that the minimum term and maximum term of a sentence are the same does not affect the sentence’s status as an indeter

minate sentence. See, State v. Marrs , 272 Neb. 573, 723 N.W.2d 499 (2006); State v. Urbano , 256 Neb. 194, 589 N.W.2d 144 (1999). Thus, we conclude that Artis’ sen

tence for his Class IV felony is an indeterminate sentence in which the minimum and maximum terms are the same. Such sentence complies with L.B. 1094’s requirement that the court impose an indeterminate sentence for a Class IV felony when that sentence is imposed consecutively with a Class IIA felony, and we therefore find no plain error in this regard. 2 

### The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modif 

### M otio n for reheari n g overru

2 Id. at 179-80, ___ N.W.2d at ___.
Shawn Derek SLATER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3878

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31720]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1172 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-960, K2025-959.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31720 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 18 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 18

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
    Protection Agency relating to ``National Primary Drinking Water 
        Regulations for Lead and Copper: Improvements (LCRI)''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 2025

Mr. Palmer submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
    Protection Agency relating to ``National Primary Drinking Water 
        Regulations for Lead and Copper: Improvements (LCRI)''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 
``National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: 
Improvements (LCRI)'' (89 Fed. Reg. 86418 (October 30, 2024)), and such 
rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Donald
Cameron, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dynamic Alert
Limited;





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 quarterly 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 Registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and I have:





a)
            designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
      information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
      particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
      prepared;





b)
            evaluated
      the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures
      as of a date within ninety (90) days prior to the filing date of this
      quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and





c)
            presented
      in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
      controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
      Date;





5. The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):





a)
            all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
      which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process,
      summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
      Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;
      and





b)
            any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal
      controls; and





6. The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.








Date:
November 12, 2009








By:           /s/
Donald Cameron





Donald
Cameron


Secretary,
Treasurer, principal financial officer and principal accounting
officer
# C_2017046EN.01002501.xml

| 13.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/25

---

Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA)

(Case T-882/16)

(2017/C 046/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sipral World, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Dolfina, SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DOLFINA’ — EU trade mark application No 3 701 828

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 1897/2015-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the intervening party, LA DOLFINA S.A., to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Second Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the intervening party, LA DOLFINA S.A., to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Second Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 15, 42, 51, 75, 78 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rules 22 and 40 of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 15, 42, 51, 75, 78 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rules 22 and 40 of Regulation No 2868/95.

---
# C_2017161EN.01000801.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 7 February 2017 — Grzegorz Chudaś and Irena Chudaś v DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft AG

(Case C-66/17)

(2017/C 161/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Poznań-Grunwald i Jeżyce w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Grzegorz Chudaś and Irena Chudaś

Applicants:

Defendant: DA Deutsche Allgemeine Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft AG

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Should Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (1) ... (‘Regulation No 805/2004’), read in conjunction with Article 7 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that a European Enforcement Order certificate may be issued in respect of a decision concerning reimbursement of the costs of proceedings contained in a judgment in which a court has established the existence of a right?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15.

1

---