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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1923 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1923

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the exclusion 
      from gross income for damage awards for emotional distress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 1999

 Mr. Frank of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. Frost, Ms. Sanchez, and 
Mrs. Thurman) 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 restore the exclusion 
      from gross income for damage awards for emotional distress.

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR DAMAGE AWARDS 
              FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 104 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to compensation for injuries or 
sickness) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``physical'' each place it appears in 
        paragraph (2), and
            (2) by striking the last 2 sentences and inserting the 
        following new sentence: ``For purposes of paragraph (2), the 
        term `personal injuries or sickness' includes emotional 
        distress.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to amounts received after December 31, 1998, in taxable years 
ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
Harry Lonzo-Bolton ERVIN, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 18-5735.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

PHILLIP RAY POWELL §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-95

BRYAN DOBBS, ET AL. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Phillip Ray Powell, a prisoner confined at the United States Penitentiary in

Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Christine L. Stetson for

consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The magistrate judge

recommends dismissing the action without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record and the pleadings. Proper notice

was given to Plaintiff at his last known address. See FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). No objections to

the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge were filed by the parties.

Case 1:23-cv-00095-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 06/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 12
ORDER

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct,

and the report of the magistrate judge [Dkt. 5] is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in

accordance with this memorandum order.

2

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 1st day of June, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00095-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 06/01/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 13
Jovan HOWARD, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 18-7564.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District denied.
I, S. Paul Sandhu, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of GTC Telecom Corp. and
subsidiaries (the "Registrant");

2.     Based  on  my  knowledge,  this annual 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 annual
report;

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

4.     The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I are responsible for
establishing  and  maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange  Act  Rules  13a-15(e)  and  15d-15(e)) for the registrant and 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 that has materially affected, or is
reasonably  likely  to  affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting;  and;

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

Date: September 28, 2005

/s/ S. Paul Sandhu
S. Paul Sandhu
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Angela ROGERS, petitioner, v. COMPASS AIRLINES, INC., et al.

No. 18-9284.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1152

COBURN T. NORFLEET, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (MISC-01-28-5) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 6, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Coburn T. Norfleet, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Phillip Cihlar, Carol Ann Barthel, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Coburn T. Norfleet appeals the district court’s order dismissing his petition to quash administrative summonses issued to third parties by the Internal Revenue Service. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Norfleet v. United States , No. MISC-01-28-5 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 5, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Edward Michael NERO, et al., petitioners, v. Marilyn J. MOSBY.

No. 18-440.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,582
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          14,894
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     29,936
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          29,936
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            29,936
<LOANS>                                        283,390
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 420,954
<DEPOSITS>                                     275,777
<SHORT-TERM>                                    25,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,025
<LONG-TERM>                                     83,073
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           32,342
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,342
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 420,954
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,909
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,200
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                24,109
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,295
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,178
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,931
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      640
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (8)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    809
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,125
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,125
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,038
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.49
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,052
<LOANS-PAST>                                        61
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,762
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      211
<RECOVERIES>                                        26
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,217
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,217
        

</TABLE>
Ernest Milton GLOVER, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8382.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 50960 Summary Calendar

CAROL DAVIS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

KILLEEN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; TOM SCHATTE; AMY FOSTER,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:14

- CV

- 3 3 6

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges

.
PER CURIAM: *

Carol Davis sued Defendants alleging various § 1983 and state claims.

The district court conclud ed that Davis failed to present any genuine issue of

material fact and granted Defendants’ s ummary judgment

. We agree that

Davis offered no evidence to support her claims.

AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the li mited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
April 15, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk Case: 15-50960 Document: 00513467246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2016
EXHIBIT 21.1


                      OVERSEAS FILMGROUP, INC. SUBSIDIARIES

Alien Towers, Inc., a California corporation

Code 99 Productions, Inc., a California corporation

Intrastate Film Distributors, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Jacaranda Music, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Map Productions, Inc., a California corporation

Overseas Filmgroup (UK) Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the
United Kingdom

Walrus Pictures, Inc., a California corporation

                        MAP PRODUCTIONS, INC. SUBSIDIARY

Map Movies Canada, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Canada

                  OVERSEAS FILMGROUP (UK) LIMITED SUBSIDIARIES

Elphich Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom

OFG Films Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the Island of
Jersey
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 11/13/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       40,079
COMMITMENTS
   1,591   22,933    2,265   35,843   14,516   39,699   39,714      380      365

CHANGES FROM 11/06/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,529)
     467    2,272      328    2,488    1,013    3,283    3,613     -754   -1,084

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     4.0     57.2      5.7     89.4     36.2     99.1     99.1      0.9      0.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       45)
       6       12        7       22       21       31       37`

---

Updated November 16, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# FILED OCT - Ii 

## 2010 Clerk Us D' C ". Istrict&

Ourts forthe Dist( t Bankruptcy Kareemah Bell, IC of COlumbia Plaintiff,
v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil ActionNo. 

# 10 

# 1710 Metropolitan Police/Hope Shelter, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiff'sprose complaint and application to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff's application and dismiss the complaint for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. The subject matterjurisdiction ofthe federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federaljurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are ofdiverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking reliefin the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court'sjurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal ofthe action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff, who lists her mailing address as a Landover Hills, Maryland, residence, sues presumably the District ofColumbia Metropolitan Police Department and D.C.-based Hope Shelter for an alleged assault by a homeless woman at the shelter. The complaint neither presents a federal question nor provides a basis for diversityjurisdictionbecause no amount in controversy is pleaded. A separate Order ofdismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date:
__ --'---+-'-"-'u-=-_, 2010

# ~/L.SN~ United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF THE MAXIM GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF JULY
31, 1996 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOWS FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                       5,145,334
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               49,278,139
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,610,690
<INVENTORY>                                 38,954,990
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            97,287,138
<PP&E>                                     133,656,225
<DEPRECIATION>                              35,456,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             210,143,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       42,870,136
<BONDS>                                     90,446,568
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,510
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               210,143,683
<SALES>                                    231,462,057
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           231,462,057
<CGS>                                      166,933,672
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               54,103,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               424,974
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               375,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,039,628         
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,513,973
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             47,805
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    47,805
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
David Lee GENTLES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8909.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Carston Carrell WOODSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 17-8267.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 6, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Brian Edward REYNOLDS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5500.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1949

To suspend temporarily the duty on Rhinovirus drugs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 26, 1999

Mr. BECERRA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Rhinovirus drugs.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:
2

•HR 1949 IH

‘‘ 9902.32.97 Trans-(2′R,

3′′′S,4S,5′S) -(4-

{2′-(4-

Fluorobenzyl)-6′-

methyl-5′-[(5′′-

methylisoxazole3′′-carbonyl)amino]-4-

oxoheptanoylamino}-5-(2′′′-

oxopyrrolidin-3′′′-

yl)pent-2-enoic

acid ethyl ester

(provided for in

subheading

2931.00.60) ....... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2002 ’’.

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

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the

4 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1782 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1782

 To clarify the categories of children eligible for enrollment at the 
                  Library of Congress day care center.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 1999

  Mr. Hoyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To clarify the categories of children eligible for enrollment at the 
                  Library of Congress day care center.

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

SECTION 1. CATEGORIES OF CHILDREN ELIGIBLE FOR ENROLLMENT AT LIBRARY OF 
              CONGRESS DAY CARE CENTER.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 205(g) of the Legislative 
Branch Appropriations Act, 1991 (2 U.S.C. 141 note) is amended to read 
as follows:
            ``(1) as a day care center providing child care services to 
        a group of children of whom at least 50 percent have 1 parent 
        or guardian who is a Federal employee, in accordance with the 
        priorities for enrollment described in subsection (i);''.
    (b) Priorities for Enrollment.--Section 205 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
141 note) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(i) The priorities for enrollment of children in the day care 
center of the Library of Congress are as follows:
            ``(1) The first priority for enrollment shall be given to 
        children or grandchildren of Library of Congress employees and 
        dependent children who live with such employees.
            ``(2) The second priority for enrollment shall be given to 
        children of other legislative branch employees and dependent 
        children who live with such employees.
            ``(3) The third priority for enrollment shall be given to 
        children of employees of other Federal departments and agencies 
        and dependent children who live with such employees.
            ``(4) Final priority shall be given to children of other 
        individuals.''.
                                 <all>
```
David McSHAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8827.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

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