alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 895 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

an exemption from gross income for mandatory restitution or civil damages as recompense for trafficking in 

persons. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 895 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Human Trafficking 

3 Survivor Tax Relief Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION 

5 RESTITUTION AND CIVIL DAMAGES AWARD6 ED UNDER SECTIONS 1593 AND 1595 OF TITLE 

7 18, UNITED STATES CODE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap9 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended 

10 by section 9501(b)(4) of the American Rescue Plan Act 

11 of 2021 (Public Law 117–2), is amended by inserting be12 fore section 140 the following new section: 

13 ‘‘SEC. 139J. CERTAIN AMOUNT RECEIVED AS RESTITUTION 

14 OR CIVIL DAMAGES AS RECOMPENSE FOR 

15 TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS. 

16 ‘‘(a) EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME.—Gross in17 come shall not include any civil damages, restitution, or 

18 other monetary award (including compensatory or statu19 tory damages and restitution imposed in a criminal mat20 ter) awarded— 

21 ‘‘(1) pursuant to an order of restitution under 

22 section 1593 of title 18, United States Code, or 

23 ‘‘(2) in an action under section 1595 of title 18, 

24 United States Code.’’. 

25 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec26 tions for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the In-
3 

†S 895 ES

1 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting be2 fore the item relating to section 140 the following new 

3 item: 

‘‘Sec. 139J. Certain amount received as restitution or civil damages as recompense for trafficking in persons.’’. 

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the Senate April 27, 2022. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 895 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

ompense for trafficking in persons. mandatory restitution or civil damages as recprovide an exemption from gross income for
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahr a Bridget M. McCormac k
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstei n Kurtis T. Wilde r Elizabeth T. Clement,
J ustices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at t he direction of the Court.

May 16, 2018

d0509p 

# Order

Clerk May 16, 2018

156689

In re CONSERVATORSHIP OF RHEA BRODY.

_____________ _______________ _____________ MARY LYNEIS, as C onservator for RHEA BRODY, Appellee, v SC: 156 689 COA: 332994 Oakland Probate Court: ROBERT D. BRODY, 2015-367333-CA Appellant, and

JAY BRODY, Interested Party, and

GERALD BRODY and CATHY B. DEUTCHMAN, Interested Parties-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIE D, because we are not persuaded that the questions pre sented should be reviewed by th is Court.

We further note that the briefs filed by the parties and the am icus discuss three
sentences that were inc luded in the Court of Appeals September 19, 2017 slip opinion but
are not included in the advance sheets version of the opinion, which was released after the parties and amicus filed th eir briefs in this Court. The s lip opinion stated: “As Rhea’s husband, Robert was an indivi dual entitled to priority consider ation. However, Robert
was not entitled to consideration unless the probate court cons idered an independent fiduciary and found him or her unsuitable. Lyneis, as trustee and independent fiduciary, had statutory priority over Robert, despite Robert’s marriage t o Rhea. MCL 700.5409(1).” These sentences are omitted from the advance sheets version of the Court of Appeals opinion, and are therefore not part of that co urt’s final published opinion.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Mental Health Initial Review Group; Mental Health Services Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         February 24-25, 2025.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Address:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Meeting Format:*                         Virtual Meeting.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Aileen Schulte, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-443-1225, email:                         *aschulte@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 10, 2025.

Bruce A. George,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2025-00843 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit
32.2




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 Swinging Pig Productions, Inc. a Florida
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Daniel Mirman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to
the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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.




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






/s/
      Daniel MirmanDaniel
      Mirman
                Chief
      Financial Officer
                August
      12, 2008
Souveni PETIT-FRERE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2370

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.5
Promissory Note

Lender: Corporacion Pipasa, S,A,
Borrower: Inversiones La Ribera, S.A.
Amount: c11,584,440
Currency: Costa Rican Colones
Interest Rate: 16.00% fixed rate
Date of issuance: October 30, 2001
Due date: Due on demand
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7274** 

METKEL ALANA , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the Unite d States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv - 00564

- RAJ

- TEM )

Submitted : January 20, 2012 Decided: February 7, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismis sed by un published per curiam opinion
. Metkel Alana, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Metkel A lana seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of app ealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a pr isoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 32 2, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alana has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the fact s and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
IIA 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 8 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Homeland 

Security relating to ‘‘Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of 

Employment Authorization and Documentation for Certain Employment 

Authorization Document Renewal Applicants’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2025 

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Department of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of Employment 

Authorization and Documentation for Certain Employment Authorization Document Renewal Applicants’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Increase of 

5 the Automatic Extension Period of Employment AuthorVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:35 Jan 30, 2025 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ8.IS SJ8

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 8 IS 

1 ization and Documentation for Certain Employment Au2 thorization Document Renewal Applicants’’(89 Fed. Reg. 

3 101208 (December 13, 2024)), and such rule shall have 

4 no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EX PARTE Terrance Ray JOHNSON

CR-16-1190

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Dirk Douglas THOMAS aka Dirk Thomas

NO. 2018-KO-1841

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

*298WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the courts below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
Exhibit 10.43

Amendment to Employment Agreement dated August 1, 1993 between Stephen Adams and the Company.

[TYPED
ON AFFINITY GROUP, INC. LETTERHEAD]

September 1,
2000

Stephen
Adams
Affinity Group, Inc.
2575 Vista Del Mar Drive
Ventura, CA 93001

Re:  Employment Agreement dated as of August 1, 1993 between Affinity Group, Inc. (the "Company") and Stephen Adams, as amended (the "Employment
Agreement")

Dear
Steve:

The
term of the Employment Agreement continues until September 1, 2000. The Company desires to continue your employment in accordance with the terms of the Employment Agreement
and you have acknowledged that you are willing to continue such employment. Therefore, the terms of the Employment Agreement shall be extended for an additional one (1) year period beginning on
the date hereof and continuing until September 1, 2001.

If
the foregoing properly sets forth our understanding, I would appreciate your so acknowledging by executing the counterpart of this letter in the space provided below.

| |  | AFFINITY GROUP, INC.
| |  | --------------------
| |  | By:                 

Accepted
and agreed to as of the 1st day of September, 2000.

|/s/Stephen Adams |  |  |  | 
|---------------- |  |  |  | 

73

---
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 on Form 10-QSB of HemoBioTech, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  Arthur
P. Bollon,  Ph.D.,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby  certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

a. the Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


DATE: MAY 15, 2006                      /s/ ARTHUR P. BOLLON, PH.D.
                                        ARTHUR P. BOLLON, PH.D.
                                        CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                        (PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER)



A signed  original 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.
Case 2:05-cv-00241-J Document 17 Filed 12/01/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 76
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Biotel Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities listed below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                          | Biotel Inc.                                                                           
|------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         
|Date:   November 10, 2006 | By:                                                                                   
|                          | B. Steven SpringroseChief Executive Officer and President(principal executive officer)
|                         
|                         
|Date:   November 10, 2006 | By:                                                                                   
|                          | Judy E. NausChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)                      

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







---
III 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 35 

Honoring the 100th anniversary of Nellie Tayloe Ross becoming the first 

female elected as the Governor of a State in the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2025 

Ms. LUMMIS (for herself and Mr. BARRASSO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the 100th anniversary of Nellie Tayloe Ross becoming the first female elected as the Governor of a 

State in the United States. 

Whereas, in 1925, Nellie Tayloe Ross (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘Governor Ross’’), a pioneering figure in 

United States politics who made significant contributions 

to the advancement of women in leadership and public 

service, achieved the historic distinction of being the first 

female elected as the Governor of a State in the United 

States; 

Whereas, on January 5, 1925, Governor Ross was inaugurated as the 14th Governor of Wyoming, a momentous 

event in the political history of the United States that 

not only marked a major milestone for the rights and emVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:21 Jan 25, 2025 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR35.IS SR35

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 35 IS 

powerment of women, but also set a precedent for women 

in governance across the United States; 

Whereas, during her tenure, Governor Ross demonstrated exceptional leadership in advocating for banking reform, 

public health, education, and the overall welfare of the 

people of the State of Wyoming, embodying a steadfast 

commitment to public service and the betterment of the 

State; 

Whereas the groundbreaking leadership of Governor Ross 

represented the principles of progress and innovation, 

serving as a symbol of determination, resilience, and the 

tireless spirit of women in the State of Wyoming and the 

United States; and 

Whereas the Senate, recognizing the profound impact of the 

legacy of Governor Ross, honors and celebrates the enduring influence of the achievements of Governor Ross, 

which continue to inspire generations of women to 

achieve leadership roles in all levels of government: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes and commemorates the legacy of 

3 Governor Nellie Tayloe Ross (referred to in this res4 olution as ‘‘Governor Ross’’) and her 

5 groundbreaking role as the first female elected as 

6 the Governor of a State in the United States; 

7 (2) celebrates the lasting contributions of Gov8 ernor Ross to the advancement of women in leader9 ship positions; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•SRES 35 IS 

1 (3) calls on the citizens of the United States to 

2 join in the observance of January, 2025, as the 

3 100th anniversary of the pioneering spirit of Gov4 ernor Ross, whose work continues to inspire and em5 power women in the political arena and beyond. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re : TATYANA E. DREVALEVA, Petitioner

______________________

2020

- 149

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No.
3:20

- cv

- 00642

- JD, Judge James Donato.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________ P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Tatyana E. Drevaleva petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the U nited S tates District Court for the Northern District of California to vacate the judgment in case No. 20

- CV

- 00642 or to rule on her motion to vacate that judgment

. After Ms. Drevaleva was unsuccessful in suing her former employer for unlawful termination, retaliation , and lost wages, she filed the instant suit against the magistrate judge who was assigned to her prior case and the United States

, seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and California state law

. T he district court dismissed the claim s as barred by judicial immunity

. Ms. Case: 20-149 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 10/20/2020IN RE : DREVALEVA 2

Drevaleva filed a motion to vacate the judgment

, which remains pending . This petition followed.

The All Writs Act authorizes courts to issue writs “necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Because “[t] he All Writs Act is not an independent basis of jurisdiction

, . . . the petitioner must initially show that the action sought to be correctedby mandamus is within this court’s statutorily defined subject matter jurisdict ion.” Baker Perkins, Inc. v. Werner & Pfleiderer Corp. , 710 F.2d 1561, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983)

. Here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, not this court, would have jurisdiction over a proper appeal from a final judgment arising out of a civil action pursuant to the FTCA. Because this court would not have jurisdiction over an appeal from the underlying case,

we lack jurisdiction to issue mandamus relief. While this court has authority to transfer matters to the appropriate regional circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, we cannot say it would be in the interest of justice to do so here.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The petition is dismissed. All other pending motions

are denied as moot.

October 20 , 2020 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

s 28 Case: 20-149 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 10/20/2020