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

House Calendar No. 223 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1550 

[Report No. 111–556] 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2010 

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the 

House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill 

(H.R. 4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill 

3 (H.R. 4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

4 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:32 Jul 22, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR1550.RH HR1550

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1550 RH 

1 poses, with the Senate amendment to the House amend2 ment to the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider 

3 in the House, without intervention of any point of order 

4 except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion 

5 offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means 

6 or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 

7 amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 

8 amendment. The Senate amendment shall be considered 

9 as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equal10 ly divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minor11 ity member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The 

12 previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

13 motion to final adoption without intervening motion. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 223 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1550 

[Report No. 111–556] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the Senate amendexpiring provisions, and for other purposes. Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain amendment to the bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the ment to the House amendment to the Senate 

JULY 22, 2010 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 120 (Thursday, June 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15648]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 051801C]


Marine Mammals; Permit No. 821-1588-00

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Texas A&M University, Department 
of Marine Biology, P.O. Box 1675, Galveston, Texas 77551 [Principal 
Investigator: Dr. Randall W. Davis] has been issued a permit to take 
sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), various small cetacean species, 
and Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddelli) for purposes of scientific 
research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 
phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376;
    Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. 
Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727)570-5301; fax (727)570-5320.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Johnson or Tammy Adams, (301)713-
2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 20, 2000, notice was published 
in the Federal Register (65 FR 69737) that a request for a scientific 
research permit to take marine mammals had been submitted by the above-
named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the 
authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Regulations Governing the Taking and 
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the 
regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of 
endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). Issuance of 
this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such 
permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the 
disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this 
permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth 
in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: June 18, 2001.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 01-15648 Filed 6-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        221


        <NAME>      Fidelity Nordic Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

6-MOS


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

OCT-31-1998


<PERIOD-END>

APR-30-1998


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

101,835


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

124,201


<RECEIVABLES>

2,809


<ASSETS-OTHER>

514


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

127,524


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

3,282


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

348


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

3,630


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

98,885


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

6,709


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

4,596


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

770


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

0


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

1,872


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

22,367


<NET-ASSETS>

123,894


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

1,405


<INTEREST-INCOME>

116


<OTHER-INCOME>

(210)


<EXPENSES-NET>

541


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

770


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

1,921


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

14,322


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

17,013


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

302


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

5,109


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

3,281


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

1,543


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

375


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

50,617


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

436


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

6,910


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

276


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

0


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

541


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

74,556


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

15.940


<PER-SHARE-NII>

 .160


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

3.610


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .070


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

1.180


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

18.470


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

148


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
KWANG CHOL JOY, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-6286.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three denied.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Community Financial Corporation (the "Company") that the quarterly report of theCompany on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in suchreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

| Dated: August 11, 2006 | /s/ P. Douglas RichardP. Douglas RichardPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ R. Jerry GilesR. Jerry GilesSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
 
<ARTICLE> 6 
<CIK> 0000744822
<NAME> Fidelity Investment Trust
<SERIES>
 <NUMBER> 231
 <NAME> Fidelity United Kingdom Fund
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>
<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 year          
 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             oct-31-1997   
 
<PERIOD-END>                  oct-31-1997   
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>         5,073         
 
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>        5,631         
 
<RECEIVABLES>                 295           
 
<ASSETS-OTHER>                0             
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>          0             
 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                5,926         
 
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>      100           
 
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>       0             
 
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>     117           
 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>           217           
 
<SENIOR-EQUITY>               0             
 
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>      4,466         
 
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>         402           
 
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>         223           
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>     115           
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>        0             
 
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>       568           
 
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>      0             
 
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>      560           
 
<NET-ASSETS>                  5,709         
 
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>             229           
 
<INTEREST-INCOME>             16            
 
<OTHER-INCOME>                (23)          
 
<EXPENSES-NET>                101           
 
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>       121           
 
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>      580           
 
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>     250           
 
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>         951           
 
<EQUALIZATION>                0             
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>     36            
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>      55            
 
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>         0             
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>       437           
 
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>   267           
 
<SHARES-REINVESTED>           8             
 
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>        3,053         
 
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>       27            
 
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>     61            
 
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>       0             
 
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>    0             
 
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>         38            
 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0             
 
<GROSS-EXPENSE>               198           
 
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>          5,117         
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>         11.890        
 
<PER-SHARE-NII>               .310          
 
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>       2.310         
 
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>          .130          
 
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>     .200          
 
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>          0             
 
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>           14.210        
 
<EXPENSE-RATIO>               200           
 
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>        0             
 
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>          0
DELAWARE v. PENNSYLVANIA and Wisconsin.

Arkansas, et al. v. Delaware.

Nos. 145 146

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 6, 2016.

It has been suggested that the parties are in agreement on the facts relevant to a decision in this action. If this is the case, the parties are invited to file a stipulation of facts in this Court on or before 60 days from the date of this order. If such a stipulation is filed, the Court will set a schedule for briefing the legal issues. If such a stipulation is not timely filed, a Special Master will be appointed to conduct any necessary discovery and to make proposed findings of fact, and the case will proceed in the usual manner.
#### Linwood Douglas THORNE, Petitioner — Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent — Appellee.

No. 06-7297.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 4, 2006.

Decided: Dec. 21, 2006.

Linwood Douglas Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen S. Zimmermann, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Linwood Douglas Thorne appeals the district court’s order construing his motion for sentence review under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (West 2000 & Supp.2006) as a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and subsequently dismissing the § 2255 motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because it was successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims and any dispositive rulings are 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 Thorne has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.* We dispense with *337oral 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.*

*

 To the extent that Thorne’s informal brief filed in this court can be construed as a request for this court’s permission to file a successive *337§ 2255 motion under 28 *U.S.C. §*2244(b), we deny it.
No. 381.

#### Board of Liquidation, City Debt of New Orleans, et al. *v.*Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans et al.

Motion to dismiss submitted September 10, 1935.

Decided October 14, 1935.

*Messrs. Francis P. Burns, Bertrand I. Cohn, James C. Henriques,*and *Henry B. Curtis*for appellants.

*Messrs. Huey P. Long*and *James Wilkinson*for appellees.

*Per Curiam:*

The motion of the appellees to dismiss the appeal herein is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question which the appellants are entitled to raise. (1) *Oshkosh Waterworks Co.*v. *Oshkosh,*187 U. S. 437, 439; *Von Hoffman*v. *Quincy,*4 Wall. 535, 553-554; *South Carolina*v. *Gaillard,*101 U. S. 433, 437-438; *Hill*v. *Merchants’ Ins. Co.,*134 U. S. 515, 527; *Sturges*v. *Crowninshield,*4 Wheat. 122, 200. (2) *Columbus & Greenville Ry.*v. *Miller,*283 U. S. 96, 99-100; *Hooker*v. *Burr,*194 U. S. 415, 418-419; *Williams*v. *Eggleston,*170 U. S. 304, 309.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



       
<S>                            <C>
<ARTICLE>                      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from ESI
Tractebel Funding Corp.'s balance sheet as of December 31, 1998 and statement
of operations for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its 
entirety by reference to such financial statements.

<CIK>                          0000934665
<NAME>                         ESI Tractebel Funding Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. DOLLARS
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                1
<CASH>                               $1
<SECURITIES>                         $0
<RECEIVABLES>                   $23,511
<ALLOWANCES>                         $0
<INVENTORY>                          $0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                $23,512
<PP&E>                               $0
<DEPRECIATION>                       $0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 $468,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           $23,511
<BONDS>                        $445,213
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                $0
<PREFERRED>                          $0
<COMMON>                             $1
<OTHER-SE>                           $0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   $468,725
<SALES>                              $0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                $45,327
<CGS>                                $0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        $0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     $0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              $45,327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      $0
<INCOME-TAX>                         $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  $0
<DISCONTINUED>                       $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      $0
<CHANGES>                            $0
<NET-INCOME>                         $0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        $0
<EPS-DILUTED>                        $0

        

</TABLE>
#### William Thomas KNOTTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard F. ALLEN, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Charles E. Jones, Warden, et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-10125.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 19, 2006.

Michael W. Cordera, Shearman & Sterling LLP, Alan S. Goudiss, Tai H. Park, New York, NY, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Henry Mitchell Johnson, Alabama Attorney General’s Office, Stephanie Jean Norris Morman, Montgomery, AL, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and HODGES,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Wm. Terrell Hodges, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant/Petitioner, William Thomas Knotts (“Knotts”) appeals the district court’s order denying him federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether the district court properly denied habeas relief on Knotts’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct; and (2) whether the district court properly denied habeas relief on Knotts’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Assuming that the arguments and comments made by the prosecutor during the trial were improper, we conclude that Knotts’s closing argument and the trial court’s instructions ameliorated the error, and that and the arguments and comments were offset by the overwhelming evidence establishing Knotts’s guilt.

We also conclude from the record that Knotts’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are meritless.

For the above-stated reasons, we affirm the district court’s order denying Knotts habeas relief.

AFFIRMED.1

1

. Knotts was initially sentenced to death but, after the Supreme Court released its decision in *Roper v. Simmons,*543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (holding that states cannot execute a juvenile under the age of 18), and while his federal habeas petition was pending before the district court, Knotts's case was remanded to state court, where the trial court re-sentenced him to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [ES-930-01-1310-EI-241A: MSES 46739 and MSES 46740]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management Interior.

# ACTION:

Correction to Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Leases.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Land Management published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 29, 2001, a notice announcing the proposed reinstatement of oil and gas leases MSES 46739 and MSES 46740. That notice contained errors which this notice corrects.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ida V. Doup, Chief, Branch of Use Authorization, Division of Resources Planning, Use and Protection at (703) 440-1541.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Bureau of Land Management published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 29, 2001 (66 FR 17196), a notice announcing the proposed reinstatement of oil and gas leases MSES 46739 and MSES 46740. That notice incorrectly stated the increased rental for reinstated leases as $10. The correct rental rate for the reinstated leases would be $5. The notice also incorrectly stated the cost of publishing the notice as $148. The correct publication cost is $158.                

      ( print page 32961)    
Dated: May 31, 2001.

Ida V. Doup,

Chief, Branch of Use Authorization, Division of Resources Panning, Use and Protection.

[FR Doc. 01-15367  Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-84-M