alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                  294,583
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            31,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        326,505
<PP&E>                                  248,456
<DEPRECIATION>                         (214,012)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          629,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   425,635
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                             100,000
<COMMON>                                284,217
<OTHER-SE>                             (680,653)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            629,199
<SALES>                                 157,737
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        157,737
<CGS>                                    92,769
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         1,008,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       (976,612)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      (36,650)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               0
<INCOME-TAX>                              6,665
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                           (983,277)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 232 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 232

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the limitation on 
  the amount individuals can deduct for certain State and local taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2025

  Mr. Lawler 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 the limitation on 
  the amount individuals can deduct for certain State and local taxes.

    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 ``SALT Fairness and Marriage Penalty 
Elimination Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN STATE AND 
              LOCAL TAXES OF INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 164(b)(6)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``shall not exceed $10,000 ($5,000 in 
the case of a married individual filing a separate return).'' and 
inserting ``shall not exceed--
                            ``(i) except as provided in clause (ii), 
                        $100,000, and
                            ``(ii) in the case of a joint return, 
                        $200,000.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.02**

 

**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 KMG America Corporation Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 KMG America Corporation.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to KMG America Corporation and will be retained by KMG America Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Date: May 10, 2006 | /s/ Scott H. DeLong III                                                                                       |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               | Scott H. DeLong III

Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)

  |
# C_2018319EN.01000402.xml

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — VAR Srl, Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA (ATM) v Iveco Orecchia SpA

(Case C-14/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/17/EC - Article 34 - Supply of spare parts for buses and trolley-buses - Technical specifications - Equivalent products - Whether proof of equivalence may be provided after the contract has been awarded))

(2018/C 319/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: VAR Srl, Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA (ATM)

Respondent: Iveco Orecchia SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(8) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors must be interpreted as meaning that, when the technical specifications in the contract documentation refer to a specific mark, origin or production, the contracting authority must require the tenderer to submit, already in its tender, proof that the products which it proposes are equivalent to those defined in the technical specifications.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 876 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 876

       Designating October 2024 as ``National Principals Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2024

Ms. Smith (for herself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Hirono, Mr. King, Mr. Durbin, 
  Mr. Van Hollen, and Mr. Braun) submitted the following resolution; 
                   which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
       Designating October 2024 as ``National Principals Month''.

Whereas the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National 
        Association of Elementary School Principals, and the American Federation 
        of School Administrators have declared October 2024 to be ``National 
        Principals Month'';
Whereas principals are educational visionaries, instructional and assessment 
        leaders, community builders, budget analysts, facilities managers, and 
        administrators of legal and contractual obligations;
Whereas principals work collaboratively with teachers and parents to develop and 
        implement clear missions, high curriculum standards, and performance 
        goals;
Whereas principals create school environments that facilitate great teaching and 
        learning and continuous school improvement;
Whereas the vision, actions, and dedication of principals provide the mobilizing 
        force behind any school improvement effort; and
Whereas the celebration of National Principals Month would honor elementary 
        school, middle school, and high school principals and recognize the 
        importance of principals in ensuring that every child has access to a 
        high-quality education: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates October 2024 as ``National Principals 
        Month'';
            (2) honors the contributions of principals in elementary 
        schools, middle schools, and high schools in the United States; 
        and
            (3) supports the goals and ideals of National Principals 
        Month.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

In Re:

YULONDA PAUCELL WILSON

Debtor

Case No. 24-30803-SWE-13

Order Denying Motion to Reinstate Chapter 13 Case

On August 29, 2024, came on for consideration the Motion to Reinstate Chapter 13 Case.

The Court finds that good cause exists for the entry of this Order; it is therefore

ORDERED THAT the Motion to Reinstate Chapter 13 Case is hereby denied, subject to the following conditions, if 

any:

### End of Order ###

United States Bankruptcy Judge

______________________________________________________________________

Signed September 11, 2024

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Case 24-30803-swe13 Doc 64 Filed 09/12/24 Entered 09/12/24 11:20:54 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Order Denying Motion to Reinstate Chapter 13 Case, Page 2

24-30803-SWE-13

YULONDA PAUCELL WILSON

Approved: /s/ Thomas D. Powers

Thomas D. Powers, Trustee

State Bar # 16218700

Office of the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee

105 Decker Ct

Suite 1150 11th Floor

Irving, TX 75062

(214) 855-9200 / (214) 965-0758 (Fax)

Case 24-30803-swe13 Doc 64 Filed 09/12/24 Entered 09/12/24 11:20:54 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
January 11, 1977

The Honorable Gene Knize County Attorney Ellis County Waxahachie, Texas 75165 Opinion No. H-922
He: Authority of a commissioners court to reduce the salary of the secretary to the county attorney.
Dear Mr. Knize:
You have requested our opinion regarding theauthority of theCommisssioners Court of Ellis County toreduce the salary of the county attorney's secretary. OnAugust 27, 1976, the commissioners court approved "amended salary classifications" for fiscal 1977. Included thereinwas a salary increase which the county attorney had requested for his secretary. OnNovember 19, 1976, the commissioners court approved anew salary schedule,~effective December 1, 1976. The new schedule reduced the salary of the county attorney's secretary to itspre-September 1 level. The county attorney had not requested the decrease. Article 332a,V.T.C.S., provides that salaries of assistant prosecuting attorneys, investigators, secretaries and other office personnel shall be fixed by theprosecuting attorney, subject to the approval of the commissioners court of the county or the counties composing thedistrict. Sec. 5. "Prosecuting attorney" isdefined to include county attorneys. Sec. 1. InAttorney General Opinion H-908 (1976), we held that a commissioners court was authorized to refuse approval of salaries proposed by aprosecuting attorney pursuant to article 332a. We indicated, however, that theprosecuting attorney was responsible for initially setting the salaries. Inour opinion, while the commissioners courtmay reject any salary proposal submitted by aprosecuting attorney, itmay not itself fix that salary.

P. 3864The Honorable Gene Knize -page 2 (H-922)

Itwould appear that the Commissioners Court of Ellis County, byvirtue of itsNovember 19order, has attempted to fix anew salary for the county attorney's secretary. Under the terms prescribed by article 332a, only the county attorney may set the salary of his secretary. Unless and until heproposes a salary change to the commissioners court, his secretary's salary cannot be altered. Accordingly, under the facts you have presented it isour opinion that theCommissioners Court of Ellis County waswithout authority to reduce the salary of the county attorney's secretary from that setby the county attorney and approved by the commissioners court onAugust 27, 1976.
SUMMARY
Pursuant toarticle 332a,V.T.C.S., a commissioners courtmay not set the salary of the county attorney's secretary. Its authority thereunder is limited to approval or disapproval of the salary fixed by the county attorney. Vfiy truly yours,

APPROVED: ttorney General of Texas

DAVID M. KENDALL, FirstAssistant

C.ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee jwb

P. 3865
Keri DAUB, f/k/a Keri Wims, Appellant, v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF JACKSONVILLE, Appellee.

No. 1D16-1480

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 12, 2018 Rehearing Denied January 17, 2019

Lynn W. Martin of the Law Offices of Lynn W. Martin, P.A., St. Augustine, for Appellant.

Jenifer S. Worley and William T. Stone, Jr., of Saalfield Shad, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Wetherell, J., concur; Winsor, J., dissents.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 73 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 73

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that amounts paid 
    for an abortion are not taken into account for purposes of the 
                    deduction for medical expenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Biggs of Arizona (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Moore of Alabama, and 
  Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania) 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 that amounts paid 
    for an abortion are not taken into account for purposes of the 
                    deduction for medical expenses.

    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 ``Abortion Is Not Health Care Act of 
2025''.

SEC. 2. AMOUNTS PAID FOR ABORTION NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETERMINING 
              DEDUCTION FOR MEDICAL EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Amounts Paid for Abortion Not Taken Into Account.--An amount 
paid during the taxable year for an abortion shall not be taken into 
account under subsection (a).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Nicole SIMONE v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE, Marvin D. Frazier, State Lumber and Supply Company, Inc., and the State of Louisiana Through the Department of Transportation

Marvin D. Frazier v. Nicole Simone, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, City of Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Transportation and Development, and Pennsylvania & Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company

NO. 2019-CC-0037

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

Denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Henry E. ARMSTRONG

No. 2019-KK-70

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF MOREHOUSE**

PER CURIAM

The police officers had probable cause to seek a warrant for the defendant's residence. Their efforts to secure the premises, given that others were in and about the house, were justified. The evidence in plain view is therefore admissible. As such, the ruling of the trial court granting the motion to suppress is reversed. The motion to suppress is denied and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

**REVERSED and REMANDED; MOTION TO SUPPRESS DENIED.**

JOHNSON, C.J., would deny.

GENOVESE, J., would deny.
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K/Afor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”), of Mac-GrayCorporation (the “Company”) each of the undersigned, as the Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

·       theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”); and

·       theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Thiscertification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andItem 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the ExchangeAct. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification(A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theExchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shallnot be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Companyspecifically incorporates it by reference.

| Dated: April 10, 2006 | /s/ STEWART G.  MACDONALD, JR.  |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                  | Name: Stewart G. MacDonald, Jr. |
|                  | Title: Chief Executive Officer       |
| Dated: April 10, 2006 | /s/ MICHAEL J. SHEA                  |
|                  | Name: Michael J. Shea                |
|                  | Title: Chief Financial Officer       |

 

----
# C_2021252EN.01002501.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/25

---

Order of the General Court of 26 April 2021 — Jouvin v Commission

(Case T-472/20 and T-472/20 AJ II) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the collection, tracking and distribution of parcels - Decision rejecting a complaint - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Application for legal aid submitted after an action had been brought)

(2021/C 252/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Frédéric Jouvin (Clichy, France) (represented by: L. Bôle-Richard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, A. Keidel and A. Boitos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 3503 final of 28 May 2020 rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant concerning alleged infringements of Article 101 TFEU.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | The application for legal aid is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application for legal aid is rejected.

| 3. | Mr Frédéric Jouvin shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Frédéric Jouvin shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 423, 7.12.2020.

---
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, 2008, 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, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 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, 2008 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.





/s/Kimberly A.
      Springsteen-AbbottKimberly
      A. Springsteen-AbbottChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerMarch
      27, 2009
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-10154

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALFRED PETER HARMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3-96-CR-280-R

_________________________________________________________________ January 7, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The appellant, Alfred Peter Harms, appea ls his sentence for

conspiracy to export and divert goods to Iran from the United

States. He argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and

voluntary, that t he government breached the plea agreement, and

that the district court erred: 1) in refusing to give him a 3-point

adjustment for failing to complete the o ffense pursuant to U.S.

Sentencing Guideline § 2X1.1(b)(2); and 2) in imposing a four-level

upward adjustment for a leadership role in the offense.-2-

Harms has waived his right to appeal his sentence on the

grounds raised with the exception of his claim that the government

breached his plea agreement. S ee United States v. Portillo

, 18

F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994).

H arms’s plea agreement informed him that he was waiving the

right to appeal his sentence on any ground. We may review Harms’s

claim that the government breached his plea agreement because Harms

challenges the government’s conduct under the plea agreement, not

directly attacking his sentence. Harms argues that since the

government agreed not to contest a three-level adjustment of his

sentence, it violated the plea agreement when, by filing no

objec tions, it adopted the Presentence Report (“PSR”), which

indicated that such an adjustment was inapplicable. Because there

is no indication that the governm ent intended to contest Harms’s

adjustment by adopting the PSR, it did not breach Harms’s plea

agreement. S ee United States v. Wilder

, 15 F.3d 1292 , 1301 (5th

Cir. 1994).

A F F I R M E D.