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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1292

To provide that no Federal income tax shall be imposed on amounts received

by Holocaust victims or their heirs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 25, 1999

Mr. WELLER (for himself, Mr. MATSUI, Mr. PORTER, and Mr. HAYWORTH)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide that no Federal income tax shall be imposed

on amounts received by Holocaust victims or their heirs.

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

3 SECTION 1. NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON AMOUNTS RE4 CEIVED BY HOLOCAUST VICTIMS OR THEIR

5 HEIRS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986, gross income shall not include any

8 amount received by an individual (or any heir of the indi9 vidual) from any person as a result of any moral or legal
2

•HR 1292 IH

1 injustice experienced by such individual as a Holocaust

2 victim.

3 (b) HOLOCAUST VICTIM.—For purposes of this sec4 tion, the term ‘‘Holocaust victim’’ means any individual

5 who was persecuted for racial or religious reasons by Nazi

6 Germany or any other Axis regime as a result of the Holo7 caust.

8 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply to

9 any amount received before, on, or after the date of the

10 enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6615

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CRAIG MAURICE HARRIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00120-D-1)

Submitted: October 31, 2017 Decided: November 7, 2017

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Craig Maurice Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Donald Russell Pender, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Craig Maurice Harris appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion and seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as 

successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.*

 Harris makes no argument as to the denial 

of relief on his § 3582(c)(2) motion. Therefore, Harris has waived appellate review of that 

order. See United States v. Winfield, 665 F.3d 107, 111 n.4 (4th Cir. 2012) (stating 

argument not raised in opening brief considered waived). Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s order denying § 3582(c)(2) relief. United States v. Harris, No. 5:12-cr00120-D-1 (E.D.N.C. May 9, 2017).

The district court’s order dismissing Harris’ § 2255 motion is not appealable unless 

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 

(2012). 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) (2012). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of 

a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal with respect to the § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the 

 * Because both orders were entered on the same day and Harris’ notice of appeal 

does not specify which order he seeks to appeal, we look to the arguments raised in his 

informal brief.
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
Jarvis HARRIS, petitioner, v. Joe EASTERLING, Warden.

No. 18-7377.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 07/12/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      230,043
COMMITMENTS
  28,783   49,555   45,350  126,110  107,835  200,243  202,740   29,800   27,303

CHANGES FROM 07/05/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     17,748)
  -2,366    2,366     -252   15,049    8,795   12,431   10,909    5,317    6,839

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    12.5     21.5     19.7     54.8     46.9     87.0     88.1     13.0     11.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      125)
      44       30       57       28       26      107       99
```

----

Updated July 15, 2011
Todd Glenn DEAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-8635.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN HOWARD, GARY FRASER, and

GLENROY SCHAD,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., AKA

Ryder System, Inc., AKA Ryder

Transportation Services,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-15530

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01473-HRH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

H. Russel Holland, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 14, 2014

San Francisco, California

Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and GARBIS, Senior

District Judge.** 

FILED

MAR 06 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
John Howard, Gary Fraser, and Glenroy Schad (collectively, Plaintiffs)

appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of their former

employer, Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (Ryder). They allege that their termination

violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and that Ryder humiliated

them by broadcasting their terminations on its closed-circuit television system.

1. Plaintiffs failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding whether

Ryder’s stated reason for their terminations was a pretext for discrimination. See

Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1113-14 (9th Cir. 2011)

(requiring the production of “specific and substantial” circumstantial evidence to

raise a material issue of fact regarding pretext).

2. The district court acted within its discretion when it excluded

Plaintiffs’ expert’s report from consideration. The expert’s report addressed

matters within the common knowledge of the average layperson, and thus, would

not be helpful to the trier of fact. See Fed. R. Evid. 702; see also Ward v. Westland

Plastics, Inc., 651 F.2d 1266, 1271 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The question whether gender

was the basis of differential treatment is not so technical as to require the aid of an

expert to enlighten the jury or court....”).

3. The district court did not err by granting summary judgment to Ryder

on Plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because Ryder’s

2
alleged conduct in broadcasting Plaintiffs’ terminations on closed-circuit television

monitors was not sufficiently “extreme and outrageous” as to constitute intentional

infliction of emotional distress. Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp., 888 P.2d 1375,

1386-87 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

AFFIRMED.

3
**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 Timeline, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles R. Osenbaugh, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.

| /s/ Charles   R. Osenbaugh              |   | Date:  November 14, 2005 |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                                         |   |                          |
| Charles R.   Osenbaugh,                 |   |                          |
| President   and Chief Financial Officer |   |                          |
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 06/14/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      175,749
COMMITMENTS
  56,540   10,899   18,159   77,289  118,188  151,988  147,246   23,761   28,503

CHANGES FROM 06/07/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -7,098)
    -110     -212   -1,716       16   -1,960   -1,810   -3,888   -5,288   -3,210

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    32.2      6.2     10.3     44.0     67.2     86.5     83.8     13.5     16.2

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      190)
      65       21       51       63       75      150      135
```

----

Updated Jun 17, 2011
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 05/05/09          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       80,581
COMMITMENTS
  23,631    8,213   11,355   28,519   38,030   63,506   57,599   17,076   22,983

CHANGES FROM 04/28/09 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -2,006)
     628   -2,961      504   -4,122      633   -2,989   -1,823      984     -182

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    29.3     10.2     14.1     35.4     47.2     78.8     71.5     21.2     28.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      125)
      34       20       26       52       50      101       84
```

----

Updated May 08, 2009
**FIRST AMENDMENT TO1998 STOCK OPTION PLAN**

ThisFirst Amendment (the "***First Amendment***") to the 1998 Stock OptionPlan (the "***Plan***") of Home Solutions of America, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (the "***Company***"), is dated as of May 20, 2003.

WHEREAS,during 1998, the Company's stockholders approved the Plan;

WHEREAS,on May 20, 2003, at the Company's 2003 Annual Stockholders' Meeting, upon therecommendation of the Company's Board of Directors, the Company's stockholders approvedamending the Plan to increase the number of shares available for grant thereunder, as evidenced by this First Amendment.

NOWTHEREFORE, the Company's stockholders have agreed as follows:

1.         InSection 3 of the Plan, entitled "Stock", the number "1,000,000" is hereby deletedand replaced with the number "2,000,000."

2.        Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan remains in full force andeffect.  Capitalized terms that are not defined herein shall have the samemeaning assigned to them in the Plan.

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the Secretary of the Company has set his hand hereto as of the dateset forth above, to evidence the approval by the Company's stockholders of thisFirst Amendment.

 

 

|   | /s/R. ANDREW WHITE                    R.Andrew White, Secretary |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Jeffrey RANDLE, petitioner, v. MISSISSIPPI.

No. 17-9368.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Mississippi denied.
Joshua D. NELSON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-9325.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
ACE PARTNERS, LLC, dba TC's Pawn Co., petitioner, v. TOWN OF EAST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, et al.

No. 17-1617.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Anthony Jujuan HOPKINS, petitioner, v. WARDEN, VENTRESS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.

No. 18-7446.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
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 DAG Media, Inc. on Form 10-KSB, for the
period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Inbar Evron-Yogev, Chief
Financial Officer of DAG Media, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, 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 result of operations of DAG Media, Inc. Date:
  March 14, 2008
/s/ Inbar
  Evron-YogevInbar
  Evron-Yogev(principal
  financial and accounting officer) * A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to us and will
be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Theodore Walter JONES, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-9046.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

*84Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District denied.
Exhibit 10.55
   
        Management Bonus Plan:




---



##### 



5% of the employee premium dependents 15% of the dependent
premium




---



##### 



/s/ Warren Kocmond

Warren Kocmond
    
    
    
    /s/ Dorothy Jones

Dorothy JonesSr. VP, Worldwide Manufacturing Operations
    
    
    
    Sr. Director, Human Resources
 Agreed and Accepted:
  /s/ Tom Leitzke

Tom Leitzke
    
    
    
    6-28-04

DateAugust 1, 2004
[intended start date]
 Attachments:
    
    Proprietary Information Agreement
Agreement to Arbitrate Disputes and Claims
Code of Business Conduct
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          24,265
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,164
<PP&E>                                       4,081,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                 893,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,990,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,636
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,990,471
<SALES>                                         35,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,530
<CGS>                                            9,366
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,033,619
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,974,089)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,974,089)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,974,089)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

```

----

Updated June 10, 2011
Joel Stephen CUTULLE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7799.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50561

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BENNIE MOSS, also known as 

Betty Roberson,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(USDC No. SA-95-CR-148-9)

- - - - - - - - - -

March 14, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Bennie Walker Moss, a/k/a Betty Roberson, appeals from her

conviction by guilty plea of possession with intent to distribute

more than five grams of cocaine base. Moss contends that the

district court erred by denying her motion to withdraw her guilty

plea.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and
2

we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by

denying Moss’ motion to withdraw her plea. United States v. Carr,

740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). The record is not

sufficiently developed to properly evaluate Moss’ claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm Moss’

conviction and sentence without prejudice to Moss’ right to assert

her ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

proceeding.

AFFIRMED.
Chad Preston BREWER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7071.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Eric Mario BYERS, petitioner, v. E.K. WHITE, Warden.

No. 18-7839.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1487 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1487

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 1999

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide for public participation in the declaration of national 
monuments under the Act popularly known as the Antiquities Act of 1906.

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

SECTION 1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE DECLARATION AND SUBSEQUENT 
              MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

    Section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 U.S.C. 431; 
popularly known as the Antiquities Act of 1906), is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Sec. 2. That the'' and inserting ``Sec. 
        2. (a) The''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b)(1) To the extent consistent with the protection of the 
historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other 
objects of historic or scientific interest located on the public lands 
to be designated, the President shall--
            ``(A) solicit public participation and comment in the 
        development of a monument declaration; and
            ``(B) consult with the Governor and congressional 
        delegation of the State or territory in which such lands are 
        located, to the extent practicable, at least 60 days prior to 
        any national monument declaration.
    ``(2) Before issuing a declaration under this section, the 
President shall consider any information made available in the 
development of existing plans and programs for the management of the 
lands in question, including such public comments as may have been 
offered.
    ``(c) Any management plan for a national monument developed 
subsequent to a declaration made under this section shall comply with 
the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969.''.

SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall be 
construed to enlarge, diminish, or modify the authority of the 
President to act to protect public lands and resources.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
James F. MURPHY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9187.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Jerome HENDERSON, petitioner, v. Terry COLLINS, Warden.

No. 18-8194.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.