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

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2160 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 

employer wage credit for employees who are active duty members of 

the uniformed services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Mr. GRAYSON 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 extend 

for one year the employer wage credit for employees 

who are active duty members of the uniformed services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EMPLOYER WAGE CREDIT FOR 

4 EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ACTIVE DUTY MEM5 BERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 45P of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘December 31, 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

9 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2160 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to payments made after December 

3 31, 2014. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Flow                    
csv

      Flow Volume                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Flow                    
json

      Flow Volume                    
json
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7234

ROY MONROE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00479-AWA-LRL)

Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: March 1, 2019

Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roy Monroe appeals the district court’s order denying as untimely his Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b)(6) motion, which sought relief from the court’s prior order denying his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in 

the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Monroe’s informal brief does not 

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Monroe has forfeited appellate 

review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)

(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is 

limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, Angel Montalvo, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered June 8, 1982, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant is entitled to a new trial on the ground that the prosecutor, in his summation, and the trial court in its charge to the jury, improperly commented upon the defendant’s failure to testify and to call witnesses in his own behalf *(see,*CPL 60.15 [2]; *People v Brown,*91 AD2d 615; *People v La Susa,*87 AD2d 578; *People v Abreu,*74 AD2d 876). While these errors were not preserved for review as a matter of law *(see,*
      *339
      *People v Hoke,*62 NY2d 1022), given the magnitude of the errors and the less than overwhelming evidence of guilt, the interest of justice mandates reversal. To the extent that the defendant’s other contentions, including those raised in his *pro se*brief, have been preserved for our review, we find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### Oliver *v.*Walter Heywood Chair Manuf’g Co.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.*

June 6, 1890.)

Attachment—Foreign Corporations—Jurisdiction.

Under Code Civil Proc. N. Y. § 1780, providing that “an action against a foreign corporation may be maintained by a resident of the state * * * for any cause of action,” but that such action “may be maintained * * * by a non-resident in one of the cases following only: * * * (8) Where the cause of action arose within the state, ”—an attachment against a foreign corporation for a cause of action which does not appear to have arisen in the state will be vacated where the affidavit therefor fails to show that plaintiff is a resident of the state.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Harvey E. Oliver against Walter Heywood Chair Manufacturing Company. Plaintiff appeals from an order vacating an attachment in his favor against defendant, on tbe ground that it was a non-resident corporation. Code Civil Proc. H. Y. § 1780, provides as follows: “An action against a foreign corporation may be_ maintained by a resident of the state, or by a domestic corporation, for any" cause of action. An action against a foreign corporation may be maintained by another foreign corporation, or by a nonresident, in one of the following cases only: (1) Where the action is brought to recover damages for the breach of a contract made within the state, or re*772lating to property situated within the state at the time of the making thereof. (2) Where it is brought to recover real property situated within the state, or a chattel which is replevied within the state. (3) Where the cause of action arose within the state.”

Argued before Van Brunt, P. J„ and Brady and Daniels, JJ.

*Abram Kling,*for appellant. *Billings & Cardozo,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The power of the court to reach by its process the property of a foreign corporation within the limits of this state depends entirely upon statutory enactment, and does not proceed from any inherent or general jurisdiction which the court possesses. Therefore, where such right is created by statute, the conditions therein attached to its exercise must be fulfilled, and they must appear before the court obtains jurisdiction. In the case at bar the defendant is a foreign corporation, and an attachment was issued against its property for a cause of action which did not appear to have arisen in this state,- and therefore it was necessary, in order that the court should acquire jurisdiction, that it should appear that the plaintiff was a resident of the state. The papers are silent upon this point. Where the statute, as a preliminary to jurisdiction, requires facts to exist, they cannot be presumed.

The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Vargas, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered June 20, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court erred when it refused to charge, as lesser included offenses, manslaughter in the second degree and criminally negligent homicide, is without merit as no reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding that the defendant acted recklessly or negligently *(see, People v Coleman,*114 AD2d 906; *People v Bell,*111 AD2d 926). The evidence establishes that the defendant’s actions were deliberate and that he was aware of his actions. The defendant approached the victim with an open knife in his hand, and stabbed her four times, once in the back. He then fled the scene by forcing a driver at knifepoint to drive him to the subway, disposed of the knife, and, in an effort to escape, turned his reversible jacket inside out so that a different color was visible.

Also without merit is the defendant’s claim that his trial testimony was impermissibly impeached with inconsistent statements he made while testifying at a pretrial *Huntley*hearing *(People v Duffy,*44 AD2d 298, *affd*36 NY2d 258, *cert denied*423 US 861; *cf. United States v Salvucci,*448 US 83, 93-94).

The sentence imposed was not excessive. Bracken, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         871,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,918,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,018,000
<INVENTORY>                                    367,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         462,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 268,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,560,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,450,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,602,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,560,000
<SALES>                                      3,136,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,136,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               875,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                55,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             189,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,017,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   806,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,211,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,211,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30


</TABLE>
# C_2021093EN.01003801.xml

| 19.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/38

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10159 — Infosys/Daimler (Certain Assets and Personnel))

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 93/06)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Infosys Limited (‘Infosys’, India), |
| --- | --- |

—

Infosys Limited (‘Infosys’, India),

| — | Certain IT assets, personnel, contracts and liabilities of Daimler AG (‘Daimler IT Assets’, Germany). |
| --- | --- |

—

Certain IT assets, personnel, contracts and liabilities of Daimler AG (‘Daimler IT Assets’, Germany).

Infosys acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of Daimler IT Assets.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.

2.

| — | for Infosys: a global provider of digital services and IT consulting to clients across various industry segments. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Infosys: a global provider of digital services and IT consulting to clients across various industry segments.

| — | for Daimler IT Assets: a provider of IT services (help desk, workplace IT tools, data centre, SAP solutions) for the internal use of Daimler AG, a global corporation that develops, manufactures and distributes automotive products, in particular passenger cars, trucks, vans and buses. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Daimler IT Assets: a provider of IT services (help desk, workplace IT tools, data centre, SAP solutions) for the internal use of Daimler AG, a global corporation that develops, manufactures and distributes automotive products, in particular passenger cars, trucks, vans and buses.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10159 — INFOSYS/DAIMLER (CERTAIN ASSETS AND PERSONNEL)

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
EXHIBIT 99.2

   CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Calvin E. Jenness, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blount International,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-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 disclosure 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financing reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (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.



Date:  July 13, 2004

/s/ Calvin E. Jenness
------------------------------------
/s/ Calvin E. Jenness
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 – DEFENDANT’S WITNESS LIST

Ruben L. Iñiguez

Assistant Federal Public Defender

101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700

Portland, OR 97204

Tel: (503) 326-2123

Fax: (503) 326-5524

Email: ruben_iniguez@fd.org

Advisory Counsel for Pro Se Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WINSTON SHROUT,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cr-00438-JO

DEFENDANT’S WITNESS LIST

The pro se defendant, Winston Shrout, through advisory counsel, Ruben L. 

Iñiguez, submits this witness list to assist the Court during the trial in this matter.

//

//

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 95 Filed 04/14/17 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 – DEFENDANT’S WITNESS LIST

Witness Summary

Casey Hill, Special Agent, Internal 

Revenue Service

To clarify role of IRS.

Stuart A. Wexler, Trial Attorney, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Tax Division

To establish the provenance of the case 

and to establish that the case is bonded. 

Also, to testify to the issuance of GSA 24, 

25, and 25a bonds on the basis that if 

these bonds have been issued and 

collected, then to require the defendant to 

pay the $250,000 penalty for each charged

statute is 'double dipping' and fraud.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney 

General

To establish whether the charged statutes 

are constitutional and, therefore, relevant.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 14th day of April, 2017.

/s/ Ruben L. Iñiguez

Ruben L. Iñiguez

Advisory Counsel for Pro Se Defendant

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 95 Filed 04/14/17 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 – DEFENDANT’S WITNESS LIST

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 14th, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of 

such filing to the attorney(s) of record for the plaintiff.

/s/ Neysa Bogar

Neysa Bogar

Legal Assistant

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 95 Filed 04/14/17 Page 3 of 3
FORT SUMNER IRRIGATION DISTRICT MAIN DRAINLatitude: 34.404Longitude: -104.201Elevation: 4042

FORT SUMNER IRRIGATION DISTRICT MAIN DRAIN

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wesner Springs Site Page...



Wesner Springs

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00291

- CR

LANCE CEE MORGAN

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 413th District Court Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. F49727

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lance Cee Morgan appeals his judgments of conviction on a count of online

solicitation of a minor and a count of criminal solicitation of a minor.

T he trial court’s certification of defendant’s right to appeal in this case states that

this is a plea bargain case, t hat Morgan has no right of appeal, and that Morgan waived

his right to appeal. This appeal is therefore dismissed. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); Chavez

1 A motion for rehearing may be filed within 15 days after the judgment or order of this Court is rendered.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.1. If the appellant desires to h ave the decision of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that petition must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30Morgan v. State Page 2

v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals ... must dismiss

a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”); Davis

v. State , 205 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Te x. App.

— Waco 2006, no pet.).

REX D. DAVIS
Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis , and Justice Scoggins

Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed September 14, 2016 Do not publish [C R25]

days after either the day the court of appeals’ judgment was rendered or the day the last timely m otion for rehearing was overruled by the court of appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2(a).
EXHIBIT
13.2





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 on Form 20-F of RADCOM Ltd. (the “Company”)
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan Burgin, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Date:
June 18, 2009





/s/ Jonathan BurginJonathan
      BurginChief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32.2



Informational Addendum to Report on Form 10-Q

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of OYO Geospace Corporation does hereby certify as follows:



Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on Form 10-Q, the undersigned hereby certify that this Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/ Thomas T. McEntireName:    Thomas T. McEntireTitle:      Chief Financial OfficerMay 11, 2004