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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 180 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 180

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in 
               gross income of Social Security benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

Mr. Paul (for himself and Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in 
               gross income of Social Security benefits.

    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 ``Senior Citizens Tax Elimination 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCLUSION IN GROSS INCOME OF SOCIAL SECURITY 
              BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 86 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to social security benefits) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Termination.--This section shall not apply to any taxable 
year beginning after the date of the enactment of this subsection.''.
    (b) Social Security Trust Funds Held Harmless.--
            (1) In general.--There are hereby appropriated (out of any 
        money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated) for each 
        fiscal year to each fund under the Social Security Act or the 
        Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 an amount equal to the 
        reduction in the transfers to such fund for such fiscal year by 
        reason of section 86(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
            (2) No tax increases.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
        tax increases will not be used to provide the revenue necessary 
        to carry out paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

I, James C. Auten, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of MPSI Systems Inc.;

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 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 officers and I are responsible for
    establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
    in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we
    have:

    a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being
    prepared;

    b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
    procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
    covered by this report based on such evaluation;; and

    c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
    over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
    fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
    materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
    reporting.

5.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
    our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or
    operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
    likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
    summarize and report financial information; 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
    over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2003

                                                     /s/ James C. Auten
                                                     -------------------------
                                                     James C. Auten,
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
[No. 19202-1-II.

Division Two.

September 19, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Raymond Wayne Allmon, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 94-1-00284-8, Thomas L. Lodge, J., entered February 22, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Hunt, J.
Order filed February 8, 2022

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 22

- 00014

- CV

___________ TEXAS REIT, LLC, ALI CHOUDHRI, DALIO HOLDINGS I, LLC AND

DALIO HOLDINGS II, LLC , Appellant s

V.

MOKARAM

- LATIF WEST LOOP, LTD. , Appel l ee

On Appeal from the 333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021

- 27197

- A

O R D E R
No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter

for the 333rd District Court informed this court that appellan t had not made arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. On January 18, 2022 , the clerk of this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do not require a reporter s record unless appellant, within 15 days of n otice,
provided t his court with proof of payment for the record. See T ex. R. App

. P. 37.3(c). Appellant filed no reply.

Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal within twenty days of the date of this order. If appellant fails to c omply with this o rder, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Poissant, and Wilson.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 183

To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2005

Mr. PITTS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent.

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

3 SECTION 1. ESTATE TAX REPEAL MADE PERMANENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 901 of the Economic 

5 Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is 

6 amended—

7 (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘shall not 

8 apply—’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘(other 

9 than title V) shall not apply to taxable, plan, or limi10 tation years beginning after December 31, 2010.’’, 

11 and 
2

•HR 183 IH 

1 (2) in subsection (b) by striking ‘‘, estates, 

2 gifts, and transfers’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in section 

5 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconcili6 ation Act of 2001.

Æ
36 October 5, 2017 No. 53

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF OREGON

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE

AND WAREHOUSE UNION,

Plaintiff,

v.

PORT OF PORTLAND;

Commissioners of the Port of Portland,

in their individual and official capacities;

Bill Wyatt, in his individual and official capacity;

and Bruce A. Holte,

Defendants.

(United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit No. 14-35376;

S064608)

En Banc

On certified question from the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; amended certification filed 

January 6, 2017; certification accepted February 2, 2017.

Robert H. Lavitt, Schwerin, Campbell, Barnard, Iglitzin 

and Lavitt, LLP, Seattle, Washington, and Andrew J. Ziaja, 

Leonard Carder, LLP, Oakland, California, filed the brief 

for plaintiff. Also on the brief was Emily M. Maglio.

Randolph C. Foster, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, filed the 

brief for defendants Port of Portland, Commissioners of the 

Port of Portland, and Bill Wyatt. Also on the brief were 

Jeremy D. Sacks and Crystal S. Chase.

No appearance on behalf of defendant Bruce A. Holte.

PER CURIAM

The Oregon Supreme Court declines to answer the certified question.

Case Summary: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

certified a state-law question to the Oregon Supreme Court. After the Supreme 

Court accepted certification, the parties filed a stipulated motion to dismiss 

with prejudice the court’s consideration of the certified question. Held: The court 

declines to answer the certified question, and no further action is necessary.

The Oregon Supreme Court declines to answer the certified question.
Cite as 362 Or 36 (2017) 37

PER CURIAM

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit certified a state-law question to this court, which 

we restate as follows: Did programs financed by the Port 

of Portland for the benefit of private companies put tax 

revenues at risk in violation of Article XI, section 9, of the 

Oregon Constitution? After this court accepted certification, 

the parties advised us that they settled their dispute, and 

they filed a stipulated motion to “dismiss with prejudice the 

Court’s consideration of the certified question” referred by 

the Ninth Circuit. They also advised us that they filed a 

stipulated motion to dismiss with prejudice the appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit.

Given the parties’ settlement, we decline to answer 

the certified question. Any answer that we might give to 

that question would be advisory. Because only the certified 

question is before this court, no further action is necessary 

to resolve the certification.

The Oregon Supreme Court declines to answer the 

certified question.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 2:16 CR 97

)

ANTOINE LAMARR CROCKETT )

O R D E R

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge dated October 4, 2019 (DE # 58), to which objections have been waived, the

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations are now ADOPTED. Defendant is

ADJUDGED to have committed the Grade C violations of his supervised release

described in the March 26, 2019 Petition. (DE # 38.) Defendant’s term of supervised

release is REVOKED and defendant is hereby committed to the United States Bureau of

Prisons to serve a term of imprisonment of eleven (11) months, including receipt of

credit for time served while in federal custody. After successful completion of the

additional term of imprisonment, defendant shall not be placed on a further term of

supervised release. This sentence shall be imposed without requiring defendant to

make an additional court appearance.

SO ORDERED.

Date: October 16, 2019

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2021 Risk Review | 1

Introduction

1 In 2018, FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams announced Trust through Transparency, a new initiative to foster a deeper culture of openness in the FDIC. Building on 

the FDIC’s foundation of public trust and accountability, this initiative is strengthening trust between the FDIC, other regulators, the public, and banks. For more 

information, see https://www.fdic.gov/about/initiatives/trust-through-transparency/. 

The FDIC was created to maintain stability and public 

confidence in the nation’s financial system. Identifying 

and analyzing key risks in the economy, financial 

markets, and the banking industry that could affect 

insured institutions are critical to achieving this mission. 

The FDIC has communicated such risks through various 

outreach events, research, and publications. In recent 

years, the FDIC began publishing a comprehensive 

summary of key banking sector risks in a consolidated 

report, the Risk Review. The Risk Review also contributes 

to building trust and confidence through openness 

and accountability, a pillar of the FDIC’s Trust through 

Transparency initiative.1

FDIC-insured institutions navigated an unprecedented 

banking landscape in 2020 with the onset of the COVID-19 

pandemic. Federal support programs cushioned the 

nation’s economy and muted the effects of the pandemic 

on the banking industry, but close monitoring of key risks 

remains essential. The 2021 Risk Review covers key risks 

so policymakers and bankers can mitigate their scope and 

impact.

The report summarizes conditions in the U.S. economy, 

financial markets, and banking industry, and presents 

key credit and market risks to banks. The credit risk 

areas discussed are agriculture, commercial real estate, 

consumer debt, energy, housing, leveraged lending and 

corporate debt, nonbank financial institution lending, 

and small business lending. The market risk areas 

discussed are interest rate risk and net interest margin, 

and liquidity and deposits. Much of the discussion 

focuses on risks that may affect community banks. 

As the primary federal regulator for the majority of 

community banks in the United States, the FDIC is 

attuned to risks that may affect the U.S. banking system, 

community banks in particular, and benefits from this 

public discussion.

Section I is an executive summary. Section II is an 

overview of economic, financial market, and banking 

industry conditions. Section III is our assessment of the 

key credit and market risks facing banks.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

RICHARD CHARLES DYE, as Personal )

Representative of the Estate of )

GLADYS M. DYE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-194

)

EIRIK TILLMAN and )

QUEST COMMUNICATIONS,1 )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case was removed to this Court from the Allen Superior Court by Defendants based

on diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). (Docket # 2.) Citing the Complaint,

the Notice of Removal states that “Plaintiff alleges that the Decedent, GLADYS M. DYE, was a

resident of the State of Indiana” and that “Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendant EIRIK

TILLMAN is a resident of the State of Ohio.” (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 4-5.) 

Defendants’ Notice of Removal, however, is insufficient to establish the citizenship of

Gladys Dye and Eirik Tillman. This is because the “residency” of each party is meaningless for

purposes of diversity jurisdiction, as “citizenship is what matters.” Guar. Nat’l Title Co. v.

J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that statements concerning a

party’s “residency” are not proper allegations of citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332);

see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “It is well-settled that when the parties allege residence but not

1

 In their Notice of Removal, Defendants note that Qwest Communications International, Inc., is improperly

named as Quest Communications in the Complaint. (Notice of Removal ¶ 1.)

1

case 1:13-cv-00194-JVB-RBC document 4 filed 06/14/13 page 1 of 2
citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit.” Held v. Held, 137 F.3d 998, 1000 (7th Cir. 1998)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see generally Smoot v. Mazda Motors of Am.,

Inc., 469 F.3d 675, 677-78 (7th Cir. 2006). 

Therefore, the Court must be advised of Gladys Dye’s and Eirik Tillman’s citizenship,

rather than their residency, which “[f]or natural persons . . . is determined by one’s domicile.” 

Dausch v. Rykse, 9 F.3d 1244, 1245 (7th Cir. 1993); see Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp.,

671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (“But residence may or may not demonstrate citizenship,

which depends on domicile—that is to say, the state in which a person intends to live over the

long run.”); Am.’s Best Inns, Inc. v. Best Inns of Abilene, L.P., 980 F.2d 1072, 1074 (7th Cir.

1992) (“In federal law citizenship means domicile, not residence.”). 

Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to supplement the record by filing an Amended

Notice of Removal on or before June 28, 2013, properly alleging the citizenship of Decedent

Gladys M. Dye and Defendant Eirik Tillman.

SO ORDERED.

Enter for this 14th day of June, 2013.

/S/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey,

United States Magistrate Judge

2

case 1:13-cv-00194-JVB-RBC document 4 filed 06/14/13 page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Demonde, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), rendered January 5,1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

By failing to make a motion to the court of first instance to withdraw his plea or vacate his conviction, the defendant has *868failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the sufficiency of the plea allocution *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Santiago,.*100 AD2d 857). Nor does the interest of justice warrant a reversal. A guilty plea can be accepted in the absence of a personal recitation by the defendant of all the elements of the crime charged when there is no suggestion that the plea is improvident or baseless *(People v Nixon,*21 NY2d 338, 350, *cert denied sub. nom. Robinson v New York,*393 US 1067; *People v Moore,*91 AD2d 1050). In this case defendant heard a complete recitation of the prosecution’s evidence against him which formed the elements of robbery in the first degree, and was given the opportunity to present his version of the events. Given the consistency of the defendant’s responses, the adequate representation by counsel, and the fairness of the plea and the promised sentence, the court properly accepted the defendant’s guilty plea without the need for further inquiry *(see, People v Francis,*38 NY2d 150). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Kenn GOLDBLATT, petitioner, v. Nancy J. GEIGER, et al.

No. 12-1334.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

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 the direction of the Court.

 April 28, 2014

t0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148326

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148326

COA: 315156

Macomb CC: 2012-000805-AR

DAVID ALLEN WILLIS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 24, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 Annual Report of National Energy Services  Company,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  October 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
each of the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates  indicated  below,
hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operation of the Company.


Date:  March 17, 2005

           By:     /s/ Patricia A. Palmieri
                  ---------------------------------
                  Patricia A. Palmieri
                  Controller



-------------------------
A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  American  Ammunition,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  American
Ammunition,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification pursuant to18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) by Aspyra,Inc. (“Registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifies that to their knowledge:

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and

2.             The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Registrant as of and for the periods presented in the Report.

Date: August 14, 2006

/s/ AnahitaVillafane

Anahita Villafane, ChiefFinancial Officer

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toAspyra, Inc. and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 of The
Newkirk Master Limited Partnership; (the "Registrant") for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael L. Ashner, Chief Executive Officer of the
Manager of the Registrant's General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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


By:   /s/ Michael L.Ashner
      --------------------------------------
Name: Michael L. Ashner
      --------------------------------------
      Chief Executive Officer of the Manager
       of the Registrant's General Partner

Date: August 4, 2005