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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 871 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the taxable 

income limit on the allowance for depletion shall not apply in 2008 

to domestic marginal oil or gas wells. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2009 

Mr. CONAWAY (for himself, Mr. BOREN, Mr. OLSON, Mr. BRADY of Texas, 

Mr. CARTER, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. 

THORNBERRY, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. 

GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. RODRIGUEZ, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. REYES, and 

Mr. GONZALEZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

that the taxable income limit on the allowance for depletion shall not apply in 2008 to domestic marginal oil 

or gas wells. 

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


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 871 IH

1 SECTION 1. TAXABLE INCOME LIMIT ON ALLOWANCE FOR 

2 DEPLETION NOT TO APPLY IN 2008 TO DO3 MESTIC MARGINAL OIL OR GAS WELLS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (H) of section 

5 613A(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘taxable year—’’ and all that follows 

7 and inserting ‘‘taxable year beginning after December 31, 

8 1997, and before January 1, 2010.’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning be11 fore, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### Ibitsam Taher Abuhamra, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Hazam K. Abuhamra, an Infant, and as Assignee of Mohamad Kaid, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Musthaq Kaid, Respondent, v New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 850] —

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered March 31, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed, granted in part plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation withdrawing appeal signed by the attorneys for the parties on February 19 and 20, 2009,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Martoche, J.P., Smith, Fahey and Pine, JJ.
```

[Federal Register: May 17, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 27896]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17my04-44]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Agency HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, June 4, 2004.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, Room 1012.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered:
    Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-11185 Filed 5-13-04; 10:39 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
```

[Federal Register: May 28, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 103)]
[Corrections]
[Page 29087]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28my99-140]



[[Page 29087]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Applications of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange for Designation
as a Contract Market in Futures and Options on Three Month Eurodollar
FRAs

Correction

    In notice document 99-11785 beginning on page 26365 in the issue of
Friday, May 14, 1999, in the subject heading ``Eurodollar'' was
misspelled.
[FR Doc. C9-11785 Filed 5-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```

----

**======== RETURN    TO INDEX ========**

----
Exhibit 8.1





Telecom Argentina STET-France Telecom S.A.

Subsidiaries





|                           |  |                              
|-------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name                       |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                           | 
|Telecom Personal S.A.      |  | Argentina                    
|                           | 
|Núcleo S.A. (1)            |  | Paraguay                     
|                           | 
|Cable Insignia S.A. (1)(2) |  | Paraguay                     
|                           | 
|Micro Sistemas S.A. (2)    |  | Argentina                    
|                           | 
|Telecom Argentina USA Inc. |  | Delaware, United States      
|                           | 
|Publicom S.A.              |  | Argentina                    

---

|(1) |  | Interest held indirectly through Telecom Personal S.A.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | Not operative.
|--- |  | --------------
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 of Ellington Financial LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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, 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: November 18, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Laurence Penn            
|                        |  |  |  | Laurence Penn                
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                        |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 108 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 108

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 4, 2009.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (S. 352) to postpone the DTV transition date. All 
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those 
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one 
motion to commit.
    Sec. 2.  Section 2 of House Resolution 92 is amended by striking ``February 
4'' and inserting ``February 26''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Federal Register: April 11, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 17674]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11ap02-34]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURE TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Future Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, May 10, 2002.

PLACE: 1155 21st., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-8922 Filed 4-9-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
```

[Federal Register: April 23, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 20440]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ap01-43]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 11, 2001.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-10075 Filed 4-19-01; 11:23 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

�
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     OF THE
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                           GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


         GreenMan Technologies, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under
the  laws  of  the  State  of  Delaware  (the  "Corporation"),  pursuant  to the
provisions of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "DGCL"),
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY as follows:

         FIRST:  The Certificate of  Incorporation  of the Corporation is hereby
amended by  deleting  the first  paragraph  of Section 4 of the  Certificate  of
Incorporation in its present form and substituting therefor new first and second
paragraphs of Section 4 in the following form:

                  A. This  corporation  is  authorized  to issue two  classes of
         stock,  to be designated,  respectively,  "Common Stock" and "Preferred
         Stock." The total number of shares this  corporation  is  authorized to
         issue is Twenty-One Million (21,000,000) shares of capital stock.

                  B. Of such  authorized  shares,  Twenty  Million  (20,000,000)
         shares shall be designated "Common Stock" and have a par value of $0.01
         per  share.  One  Million   (1,000,000)   shares  shall  be  designated
         "Preferred Stock" and have a par value of $0.01 per share.

         SECOND:  The  amendment  to the  Certificate  of  Incorporation  of the
Corporation set forth in this  Certificate of Amendment has been duly adopted in
accordance  with the  provisions  of Section 242 of the DGCL by (a) the Board of
Directors of the Corporation having duly adopted a resolution setting forth such
amendment and declaring its  advisability  and submitting it to the stockholders
of  the  Corporation  for  their  approval,  and  (b)  the  stockholders  of the
Corporation  having  duly  adopted  such  amendment  by vote of the holders of a
majority of the outstanding  stock entitled to vote thereon at a special meeting
of  stockholders  called and held upon notice in accordance  with Section 222 of
the DGCL.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused its corporate seal to be
hereunto  affixed and this  Certificate  of Amendment to be signed by Maurice E.
Needham,  its Chief Executive Officer, and attested to by Joseph E. Lenagie, its
Secretary, this 6th day of June, 1996.

                                                GreenMan Technologies, Inc.



                                                By:  /s/ Maurice E. Needham
                                                   -------------------------
                                                     Maurice E. Needham
                                                     Chief Executive Officer

ATTEST:

/s/ Joseph E. Levangie
Joseph E. Levangie
Secretary
#### In the Matter of John Whitfield, Appellant, v Patricia J. Bailey, Individually and as FOIL Appeal Officer for the New York County District Attorney’s Office, Respondent.

Submitted February 21, 2012;

decided April 26, 2012

Reported below, 91 AD3d 491.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the October 2010 Supreme Court order, denied; motion for leave to appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the remaining portions of the order sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and, |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report faily presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates for the periods expressed in the Report. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                                                                                    |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                    |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Ryan Boyajian                                                                                       |   |
|   |   | Ryan Boyajian,                                                                                          |   |
|   |   | President and Interim-Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive, Finance and Accounting Officer) |   |
|   |   |                                                                                                    |   |
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.

January 31, 2014

h0127 

# Order

Clerk January 31, 2014

147451 & (18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147451

COA: 312687

Gratiot CC: 11

- 006365

- FH

CARL JAMAL WILLIAMS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

By order of October 28, 2013, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the

application for leave to appeal th e June 19, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals. On order

of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is again

considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we

REMAND this case to th e Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.
```

[Federal Register: August 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 48546]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18au05-31]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, September 16, 2005.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-16437 Filed 8-16-05; 10:47 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
#### Sandra L. TABER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-35744.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 8, 2010.*

Filed June 14, 2010.

David L. Lybbert, Esquire, Calbom *&*Schwab P.S.C., Moses Lake, WA, Maureen J. Rosette, Madsen Law Office, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David Burdett, Special Assistant U.S., Social Security Administration, Office of *665the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The ALJ’s determination that Ta-ber was not credible was supported by substantial evidence, in particular the medical records that indicated Taber was malingering. *Rollins v. Massanari,*261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir.2001). The ALJ did not err in discrediting Taber’s subjective complaints in light of this evidence of malingering and the lack of supporting medical evidence. *Id.; see*20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

In light of the ALJ’s valid adverse credibility determination, the ALJ’s discounting of the medical opinions related to Taber’s mental impairment was proper. *See Andrews v. Shalala,*53 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir.1995).

The ALJ’s reasons for discounting Dr. French’s Physical Medical Source Statement were specific and legitimate. *See Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,*169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir.1999). Even assuming the ALJ erred in commenting on whether Dr. French may have a pro-patient bias as a result of his position as Taber’s treating physician, the ALJ’s numerous other reasons for rejecting Dr. French’s opinion were supported by substantial evidence, including the Physical Medical Source Statement’s heavy reliance on Taber’s non-credible reporting, and contradictions between Dr. French’s opinion and Taber’s other medical records. *See id.; cf. Reddick v. Chater,*157 F.3d 715, 726 (9th Cir.1998).

The limitations set forth in the RFC were supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ did not err in rejecting a hypothetical incorporating more restrictive limitations. *Osenbrock v. Apfel,*240 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 (9th Cir.2001). Given that Dr. Bostwick testified that he agreed with the mental limitations described in the RFC, which were taken from Dr. Baldwin’s Functional Capacity Assessment, the RFC was consistent with Dr. Bostwick’s opinion. The ALJ could properly rely on the vocational expert’s testimony that the jobs suited to Taber’s capabilities did not involve significant contact with the general public. *Bayliss v. Barnhart,*427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Federal Register: March 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 13179]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18mr05-57]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, April 22, 2005.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-5488 Filed 3-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
#### Palace Electrical Contractors, Inc., Respondent, v William Floyd Union Free School District et al., Defendants, and Thomas Associates Architects & Engineers, P.C., Appellant.

[876 NYS2d 109]-

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant Thomas Associates Architects & Engineers, EC., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated October 10, 2007, which denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the original complaint insofar as asserted against it and granted the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint to add a cause of action to recover damages for negligence as against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant Thomas Associates Architects & Engineers, EC., and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

It is undisputed that no contract existed between the plaintiff, Palace Electrical Contractors, Inc. (hereinafter Palace), and the defendant, Thomas Associates Architects & Engineers, EC. (hereinafter Thomas). Thus, a viable tort claim could only exist if the bond between the parties was so close as to be the functional equivalent of contractual privity *(see Marcellus Constr. Co. v Village of Broadalbin,*302 AD2d 640 [2003]; *Mc-Nar Indus. v Feibes & Schmitt, Architects,*245 AD2d 993 [1997]; *Mannix Indus, v Antonucci,*191 AD2d 482 [1993]). Although Palace, an electrical contractor, alleged that it had some contacts with Thomas, a project architect, during the course of a renova*922tion project at some of the defendant William Floyd Union Free School District’s schools, Palace did not allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that the relationship between it and Thomas was so close so as to be the functional equivalent of privity.

Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendment was palpably insufficient and patently devoid of merit *(see Barnes Coy Architects, P.C. v Shamoon,*53 AD3d 466 [2008]; *Lucido v Mancuso,*49 AD3d 220 [2008]), and the motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the original complaint as to Thomas should have been granted. Spolzino, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.
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 Ellington Financial LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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, 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: November 18, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Lisa Mumford                            
|                        |  |  |  | Lisa Mumford                                
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                        |  |  |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Annex F-11


Section 4:89

1. An investment firm shall open a file with regard to each client, containing documents describing the
mutual rights and obligations of the investment firm and the client.

2. An investment firm shall conclude a contract with each client, which contract shall be recorded on
paper or on another durable medium and be included in the file referred to in Subsection (1). This
contract shall constitute the exclusive basis for the investment services which the investment firm
provides to the client and shall in any event set out the mutual rights and obligations of the client and
the investment firm.

3. Further rules shall be laid down by Decree as regards the content of the contract.

4, Subsections (2) and (3) shall not apply to the provision of investment services to professional in-
vestors.

5. The rights and obligations referred to in Subsections (1) and (2) may be described by means of a
reference to other documents or pieces of legislation.

Section 4:90e

1. An investment firm shall retain all relevant data regarding the transactions in financial instruments it
conducted for a minimum period of five years.

50095507 M 10083217/1