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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3943 

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

above-the-line deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2014 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

for one year the above-the-line deduction for qualified 

tuition and related expenses. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION 

4 FOR QUALIFIED TUITION AND RELATED EX5 PENSES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (e) of section 222 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘December 31, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

9 2014’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3943 IH

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

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6704

LEE GRANT GIBBS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97-

1393-MJG)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Grant Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann

Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lee Grant Gibbs seeks to appeal the district court's order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Gibbs v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-

1393-MJG (D. Md. Apr. 3, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
# C_2008301EN.01001002.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Nicole Hassett v South Eastern Health Board, Cheryl Doherty v North Western Health Board

(Case C-372/07) (1)

1

(Jurisdiction - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Point 2 of Article 22 - Disputes as to the validity of decisions of organs of companies - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State where the company has its seat - Medical practitioners' mutual defence organisation)

(2008/C 301/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nicole Hassett, Cheryl Doherty

Applicants:

Defendants: South Eastern Health Board, North Western Health Board

Defendants:

In the presence of: Raymond Howard, Medical Defence Union Ltd, MDU Services Ltd, Brian Davidson

In the presence of:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Interpretation of Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Medical trade union constituted in the form of a company under the law of a Member State, which provides assistance and indemnity to its members practising in the Member State and in another Member State — Provision of the assistance/indemnity dependent on a decision taken by the board of directors of that company under an absolute discretionary power — Challenge to a decision refusing assistance or indemnity to a doctor practising in the other Member State — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which the company has its seat on the basis of Article 22(2) of the regulation

Operative part of the judgment

Point 2 of Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that proceedings, such as those at issue before the referring court, in the context of which one of the parties alleges that a decision adopted by an organ of a company has infringed rights that it claims under that company's Articles of Association, do not concern the validity of the decisions of the organs of a company within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00371-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C.F.-C., a Child

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2002-EM5-03641

Honorable David A. Berchelmann, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 17, 2008

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On May 29, 2008, appellant filed a document entitled “Petition for Restricted Appeal”

seeking to appeal a judgment signed on November 3, 2007. In his Petition for Restricted Appeal,

appellant concedes that he participated in the trial; however, he notes that he did not participate in

the entry of the judgment. Rule 30 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states, “A party who

did not participate - either in person or through counsel - in the hearing that resulted in the judgment

complained of” may file a restricted appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 30. The judgment appellant seeks to

appeal states, “Petitioner, Daniel Cruz Cantu, appeared in person and through attorney of record,

Matt Stolhandske, and announced ready for trial.” Although the judgment was signed on November

3, 2007, the judgment states that it was “judicial PRONOUNCED AND RENDERED in court at San
04-08-00371-CV

-2-

Antonio, Bexar County, Texas on October 3, 2007.” Moreover, a notice of appeal in a restricted

appeal must be filed within six months after the judgment is signed; therefore, appellant’s notice of

appeal was required to be filed no later than May 3, 2008. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c). Appellant did

not file his Petition for Restricted Appeal until May 29, 2008. 

On August 15, 2008, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not respond to our order. This appeal

is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 99.1

SOB § 906 CERTIFICATION

CEO:

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 enherent, (the"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Bob Merkl, Chief Executive 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/ROBERT D. MERKLRobert D. Merkl
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Date: March 24, 2003                                     

CFO:

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 enherent, (the"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, George Warman, 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/GEORGE WARMANGeorge Warman
Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------
| |  | Date: March 24, 2003                                 

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 99.2

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITEDSTATES CODE, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

          In connection with the Annual Report ofPoint Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard N. Small, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

          (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 conditions and results of operations of the Company.

|   | /s/ RICHARD N. SMALL                         |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                              |   |
|   | **Richard N. Small Chief Financial Officer** |   |

Dated: March 28, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          20,253
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,548
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     62,906
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        718,679
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,129
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 848,306
<DEPOSITS>                                     622,492
<SHORT-TERM>                                    62,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,728
<LONG-TERM>                                     79,170
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               60
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 848,306
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 48,991
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,945
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   733
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                54,669
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              25,056
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,475
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           24,138
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      564
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 21,844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,058
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,094
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.50
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,123
<LOANS-PAST>                                       613
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,251
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      134
<RECOVERIES>                                        90
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,129
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,936
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,193


</TABLE>
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60758

Summary Calendar

GLO KAUFMAN,

by and Through Her Daughter and Attorney-in-Fact, Debrah Kaufman,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROBINSON PROPERTY GROUP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Doing Business as Horseshoe Casino & Hotel,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

No. 2:07-CV-48

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 19, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-60758 Document: 00511084677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2010
No. 09-60758

2

Glo Kaufman, proceeding pro se, appeals a summary judgment that is

based on judicial estoppel. Finding no error, we affirm.

The facts and initial proceedings are described in the prior opinion of this

court, Kaufman v. Robinson Property Group Limited Partnership, 331 F. App’x

276 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). After remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the basis of judicial estoppel.

The district court explicated its ruling in a thorough and reliable Memorandum Opinion filed May 15, 2009. It explained that Kaufman thought she had

a valid personal injury claim when she filed her bankruptcy petition but failed

to include the potential claim in her required bankruptcy statements. The court

properly reasoned that “there is clear inconsistency between stating by omission

on her March 16, 2006 bankruptcy petition . . . that she had no claims arising

from her alleged January 31, 2003 injury and pursuing those claims before this

court beginning with the filing of her March 26, 2007 Complaint.” The court further noted that “‘[a]lleged confusion as to a limitations period does not evince a

lack of knowledge as to the existence of the claim’” (citing In re Superior Crewboats, Inc., 374 F.3d 330, 334 (5th Cir. 2004)).

Kaufman did not properly pursue her purported claim. Her inconsistent

positions result in judicial estoppel. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court.

Case: 09-60758 Document: 00511084677 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2010
| |                                                                                                                                                             |  |  |  | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
| | KPMG LLP
Chartered Accountants
PO Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir Street
Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3
CanadaTelephone
(604) 691-3000
Fax
(604) 691-3031
Internet
www.kpmg.ca







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors of Nevsun Resources Ltd.:

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:

1.
our auditors' report dated March 31, 2011, on the consolidated balance sheets of Nevsun Resources Ltd (the Company) as at December 31, 2010, December 31, 2009, and January 1, 2009, and the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss, changes in equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009; and

2.
our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 31, 2011 on the Companys internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010;

each ofwhich is containedinthis annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


//s//KPMG LLP


Chartered Accountants

March 31, 2011
Vancouver, Canada






KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG

network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative

(KPMG International), a Swiss entity.
KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
In the Matter of: B.N.H., B.N.H., C.A.H., & C.M.H.

No. COA16-275

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

REVERSED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Rodney Nigee Pledger TAYLOR

No. 317PA14-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 22, 2016

Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Taylor, Rodney Nigee Pledger.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of May 20 16 by Defendant in this *223matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of September 2016."
**Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 March 2009 – Commission v Portugal**

**(Case C‐458/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Telecommunications – Directive 2002/22/EC – Universal service – Obligation to make available to end-users a comprehensive directory and telephone directory enquiry service

1.                     *Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Liability – Extent – Constitutionally independent institutions
(Arts 10 EC and 226 EC) (see paras 19-20)*

2.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 22)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 5(1) and (2) and 25(1) and (3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) – Certain subscribers not included in the universal directory. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by not guaranteeing, in practice, the making available to all end-users of at least one comprehensive directory and at least one comprehensive telephone directory enquiry service in accordance with the provisions of Articles 5(1) and (2) and 25(1) and (3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
# C_2008171EN.01004903.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/49

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2008 — RS Arbeitsschutz v OHIM — RS Components (RS)

(Case T-501/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 171/96)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 31.1  Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427  I, Haley Manchester, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Develocap, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4. The registrant's other certifying 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 we have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly 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;  c) disclosed in this report any change in registrant's internal control over financial reporting the occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrant's other certifying 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 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,  Dated: November 23, 2009/s/ Haley ManchesterHaley Manchester
Chief Executive Officer