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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1663 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1663

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
   15-year recovery period for the depreciation of certain leasehold 
                             improvements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2005

Mr. Shaw (for himself, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Foley, Mr. Ford, Mr. English 
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Simmons, 
    Mr. Holt, and Mr. Gary G. Miller of California) 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 permanently extend the 
   15-year recovery period for the depreciation of certain leasehold 
                             improvements.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF 15-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD FOR 
              DEPRECIATION OF CERTAIN LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS.

    Section 168(e)(3)(E)(iv) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(defining 15-year property) is amended by striking ``placed in service 
before January 1, 2006''.
                                 <all>
```
Order issued January 12, 2015

S

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

________________________________________

No. 05-14-00155-CR

No. 05-14-00156-CR

No. 05-14-00157-CR

No. 05-14-00158-CR

________________________________________

RANDY ALEXANDER REYES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

O R D E R

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the August 5, 2014 motion of 

John Tatum for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of 

the Court to remove John Tatum as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the Clerk of 

the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Randy Alexander Reyes, 

TDCJ No. 1909046, Roach Unit, 15845 FM 164, Childress, Texas, 79201.

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32 (b)



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Form 10-QSB of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, I, Lisa M. Porter, Chief Financial Officer of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc., hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | such Form 10-QSB, 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 such Form 10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of United Financial Banking Companies,
Inc.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/S/ LISA M. PORTER     
|                       
|Lisa M. Porter         
|Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Flow International Corporation, a Washington
corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending January 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Stephen D. Reichenbach, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:



(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.



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ STEPHEN D. REICHENBACH 
|Stephen D. Reichenbach     
|Principal Financial Officer
|March 16, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:15-CR-131-JTM-PRC

 )

EDDIE PIMPTON, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT EDDIE PIMPTON

TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES T. MOODY,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant Eddie Pimpton’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came for hearing before Magistrate Judge Paul R.

Cherry, on March 16, 2016, with the consent of Defendant Eddie Pimpton, counsel for Defendant Eddie

Pimpton, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant Eddie Pimpton’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11,

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant Eddie Pimpton under

oath on the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney

and of counsel for Defendant Eddie Pimpton,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant Eddie Pimpton understands the nature of the charges against him to which

the plea is offered;

(2) that Defendant Eddie Pimpton understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of

not guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant Eddie Pimpton understands what the maximum possible sentence is,

including the effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant Eddie Pimpton understands that the

sentencing guidelines apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some

circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant Eddie Pimpton has been knowingly and voluntarily

made and is not the result of force or threats or of promises;

(5) that Defendant Eddie Pimpton is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant Eddie Pimpton understands that his answers may later be used against him

in a prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant Eddie Pimpton’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Eddie Pimpton’s plea of guilty to the offense charged

in the Indictment and that Defendant Eddie Pimpton be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the

Indictment and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and Eddie Pimpton be adjudged guilty, a sentencing date before Judge

James T. Moody will be set by separate order. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation are

waived unless filed and served within fourteen days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

SO ORDERED this16th day of March, 2016.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: Honorable James T. Moody
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 10.2a

Under the 2004 CEO Variable Incentive Plan, the Human Resources Committee of the
Pinnacle West Board of Directors, annually establishes the participation level
and establishes certain financial and operational goals. However, the
calculation and the amount of payment, if any, under this Plan are in the sole
discretion of the Human Resources Committee. Accordingly, achievement of
financial and operational goals is just one method that may be utilized to
measure performance.
#### DORAN, Appellant, v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC LEA CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

Action by Charles F. Doran against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
#### John Eric HUGHES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee.

No. 03-7626.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

John Eric Hughes, Appellant pro se.

Michael Cornell Wallace, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*149PER CURIAM.

John Eric Hughes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hughes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00272-CR

Ex parte Donald Craig Roy

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 47,759, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

Donald Craig Roy appeals from the trial court’s order, made after a habeas corpus

hearing, denying bail pending a hearing on his motion for new trial. After the parties’ briefs were

filed, a supplemental record was received and filed showing that the motion for new trial has been

denied. The appeal is now moot.

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Carl E. F. Dally, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Dally*

Dismissed as Moot

Filed: August 30, 2001

Do Not Publish

* Before Carl E. F. Dally, Judge (retired), Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by assignment. See

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 74.003(b) (West 1998).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DA ISY LANE

, 1

Respondent Below,

Appellant,

v.

AARON RILEY

,

Petitioner Below

, Appellee. §

§ No. 152 , 202 1

§

§ Court Below

— Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ File No. C N

- 12

- 02677

§ Pet ition No. 21

- 01292

§

§ IN THE INTEREST OF:

§ Jordan Riley

§ Julia Riley

Submitted: October 29 , 202 1

Decided: December 7 , 202 1

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY

- REEVES

, Justices

.

O R D E R

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal , we

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis o f the Family

Court’s order dated April 14, 2021

. The appell ee filed a petition in the Family Court

seeking modification of the parties’ children’s primary residential placement, which

had been determined in October 2018 after a full hearing on the merits. T he Family

Court appropriately considered the factors set fo rth in 13 Del. C. § 729(c)(2)

,

including carefully weighing the best interest factors in light of the evidence

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 7(d).2

presented

. In concluding that the parents would have shared residential placement

on an alternating weekly schedule, the Family Court acted with in its broad

discretion. 2 Factual findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly

erroneous, and when the determination of facts turns on a question of the credibility

of the witnesses appearing before the trial court, we will not substi tute our opinion

for that of the trier of fact. 3

N OW, TH EREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery

- Reeves

Justice

2 See Russell v. Stevens , 2007 WL 3215667 , at *2 (Del. Nov. 1, 2007) (affirming Family Court’s

award of primary residential placement and stating that when the Fa mily Court appropriately

considers and weighs each of the best interest factors, the “law vests wide discretion in the trial

court to determine where custody shall be placed”)

. 3 Shimel v. Shimel , 2019 WL 2142066, at *2 (Del. May 14, 2019).
##### 



EXHIBIT 12

INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
DIVIDENDS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 AND 2002
(Dollars in thousands)

2003
    
    2002(Unaudited)Earnings:Net Income
    
    $
    375,174
    
    
    $
    389,624Add: Add:Provision for income taxes
    
    
    192,477
    
    
    
    190,048Fixed charges
    
    
    735,246
    
    
    
    689,830Less: Less:Capitalized interest
    
    
    36,159
    
    
    
    44,968Earnings as adjusted (A)
    
    $
    1,266,738
    
    
    $
    1,224,534Preferred dividend requirements
    
    $
    2,925
    
    
    $
    18,635Ratio of income before provision for income taxes to net income
    
    
    151
    %
    
    
    149
    %Preferred dividend factor on pretax basis
    
    $
    4,417
    
    
    $
    27,766Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    
    689,141
    
    
    
    625,488Capitalized interest
    
    
    36,159
    
    
    
    44,968Interest factor of rents
    
    
    9,946
    
    
    
    19,374Fixed charges as adjusted (B)
    
    
    735,246
    
    
    
    689,830Fixed charges and preferred stock dividends (C)
    
    $
    739,663
    
    
    $
    717,596Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
(A) divided by (B)
    
    
    1.72x
    
    
    
    1.78xRatio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
(A) divided by (C)
    
    
    1.71x
    
    
    
    1.71x
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 33324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13340]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) 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 Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK U24 SEP.
    Date: July 9, 2021.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Xiaodu Guo, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 7023, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 
594-4719, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85e2f0eafdc5e0fdf1f7e4abebece1e1eeabebecedabe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d5b2a0baad95b0ada1a7b4fbbbbcb1b1befbbbbcbdfbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 14, 2021.
David W Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-13340 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1434 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1434

To designate the Federal building to be constructed at 799 First Avenue 
 in New York, New York, as the ``Ronald H. Brown United States Mission 
                   to the United Nations Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

  Mr. Rangel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building to be constructed at 799 First Avenue 
 in New York, New York, as the ``Ronald H. Brown United States Mission 
                   to the United Nations Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building to be constructed at 799 First Avenue in New 
York, New York, shall be known and designated as the ``Ronald H. Brown 
United States Mission to the United Nations Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ronald H. Brown 
United States Mission to the United Nations Building''.
                                 <all>
```
1

SMITH T. WILLIAMS

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

550 17th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20429-0002

202-898-3862

smwilliams@fdic.gov

EDUCATION

PhD University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, 2010

MA University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, 2009

BA Randolph-Macon Woman’s College, Lynchburg, VA, 1995

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Washington, DC

Chief, Special Studies 3/2016-present

Acting Chief, Special Studies 9-11/2013, 3-5/2014, 7/2014-6/2015, 7/2015- 3/2016

Senior Financial Economist 10/2012-8/2013, 12/2013-2/2014, 6/2014, 6-7/2015

Financial Economist 9/2010-10/2012

WORKING PAPERS

“Do Women Shy Away from Competition?: the Role of Information on the Choice to Compete”

“Do Unions Affect State Minimum Wage Levels?” 

“Do Minimum Wage Workers Favor an Increase in the Minimum Wage?” 

WORKS IN PROGRESS

“Does Access to Banks Affect New Firms’ Use of Bank Loans?” with Yan Lee

PRESENTATIONS

“FDIC 2016 Small Business Lending Survey”

FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking Meeting (April 2016)

FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion Meeting (May 2015)

“Does Access to Community Banks Affect New Firms’ Use of Bank Loans?”

FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking Meeting (November 2013)

Federal Reserve System Conference on Community Banking (October 2013)

“Do Women Shy Away from Competition?: the Role of Information on the Choice to Compete”

The 18th Annual Meetings of the Society of Labor Economists, (April 2011)

“Do Minimum Wage Workers Favor an Increase in the Minimum Wage?”

Department of Economics, University of California Irvine (2009)

All University of California Labor Conference Graduate Poster Session (2009)

“Can Economic Motivation Explain Votes in Favor of Minimum Wages?” 

Department of Economics, University of California Irvine (2008)
2

“Do Unions Affect State Minimum Wage Levels?”

Department of Economics, University of California Irvine (2007)

RESEARCH INTERESTS

Start-up Firms, Community Banks, Job Growth, Public Economics

GRANTS & FELLOWSHIPS

Russell Sage Foundation, “Why Do Women Shy Away from Competition?: the Effects of 

Information on the Choice to Compete”

UCLA Institute for Research on Labor & Employment, “Why Do Women Shy Away from 

Competition?: the Effects of Information on the Choice to Compete”

Research Fellowship, Department of Economics, UC Irvine (2007, 2008, 2009)

HONORS & AWARDS

Star Award, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (2013)

First Place, Sanli Pastore & Hill Excellence in Economics Writing Award, Institute for 

Mathematical Behavioral Sciences, UC Irvine (2009)

Best Teaching Assistant Award, Department of Economics, UC Irvine (2008-2009)

Dean’s Commendation for Outstanding Teaching, UC Irvine (Spring 2006, Winter 2007, 

Winter 2008)

ACADEMIC SERVICE

Referee, Economic Inquiry, State and Local Government Review, Journal of Banking and Finance

3-2017
1

Legal/Regulatory Regime

Applicable to 

Prepaid Products 

FDIC Advisory Committee on Economic Inclusion 

April 26, 2012

Elizabeth Khalil

Senior Policy Analyst, Supervisory Policy Branch, 

Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection 

Michael Briggs

Acting Senior Counsel, Legal Division
2

Consumer Protections Applicable to Prepaid

Vs. Other Payment Methods
3

Types of Prepaid Products

 Consumer protections applicable to prepaid vary by 

the type of prepaid product.

 General-Purpose Reloadable (GPR) Cards 

 Carry a network brand (e.g., Visa, MC, Amex); 

 “Open-loop” (may be used as other cards on that network may be 

used).

 Payroll Cards

 Loaded with employment-related compensation;

 Normally open-loop. 

 Gift Cards

 May be open-loop or “closed-loop” (usable at only one retailer/closed 

universe of retailers); 

 May be reloadable;

 Normally marketed as a gift card/meant to be used once or for finite 

purposes, rather than as an ongoing substitute for a bank account. 
4

EFTA/Regulation E

 The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and its implementing 

Regulation E provide numerous consumer protections re: 

covered “accounts” (including checking accounts, and debit 

cards linked to checking accounts) – e.g.: 

 Certain account disclosures;

 Periodic statements;

 Error resolution procedures;

 Limitations on consumer liability. 

 But EFTA/Reg E do not cover most prepaid products: 

 Payroll cards: generally covered;

 Gift cards: covered only by very specific, limited provisions;

 GPR: not covered at all. 

 CFPB now has exclusive rulemaking authority under EFTA, 

and could choose to extend Reg E to all/additional prepaid. 4
5

TILA/Regulation Z

 The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and its implementing 

Regulation Z provide numerous consumer protections re: 

credit cards (and certain other types of consumer credit), 

including: 

 Certain account disclosures;

 Periodic statements;

 Error resolution procedures;

 Limitations on consumer liability. 

 But TILA/Reg Z apply only to credit – not to prepaid products. 

5
6