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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4212 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 

15-year recovery period for qualified leasehold improvement property, 

qualified restaurant property, and qualified retail improvement property. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2014 

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. NEAL, Mr. GERLACH, and Mr. 

KIND) 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 permanently 

extend the 15-year recovery period for qualified leasehold 

improvement property, qualified restaurant property, and 

qualified retail improvement property. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF TREATMENT OF 

4 QUALIFIED LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENT 

5 PROPERTY AS 15-YEAR PROPERTY FOR PUR6 POSES OF DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (iv) of section 

8 168(e)(3)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4212 IH

1 amended by striking ‘‘placed in service before January 1, 

2 2014’’. 

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

4 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

5 December 31, 2013. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF TREATMENT OF QUALI7 FIED RESTAURANT PROPERTY AS 15-YEAR 

8 PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF DEPRECIA9 TION DEDUCTION. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (v) of section 168(e)(3)(E) 

11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik12 ing ‘‘placed in service before January 1, 2014’’. 

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

14 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

15 December 31, 2013. 

16 SEC. 3. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF TREATMENT OF QUALI17 FIED RETAIL IMPROVEMENT PROPERTY AS 

18 15-YEAR PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF DE19 PRECIATION DEDUCTION. 

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Clause (ix) of section 

21 168(e)(3)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

22 amended by striking ‘‘, and before January 1, 2014’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4212 IH

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

2 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

3 December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Nathaniel HENDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D02-2985.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 5, 2003.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Rosemarie Farrell, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, W., concurs specially with opinion.

SHARP, W., J.,

concurring specially.

I agree this *Anders*appeal should be affirmed. However, since it is an *Anders*case, I think our affirmance should expressly state it is without prejudice to seek an appropriate remedy for a sentencing error, which this court has discovered in reviewing the record. *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); *State v. Causey,*503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).

In this case, Henderson was convicted of various second and third degree felonies and received concurrent split sentences of 7 years incarceration followed by 10 years probation. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), Henderson filed a motion to correct a sentencing error pertaining to the third degree felonies because the 7 year sentence exceeded the statutory maximum penalty of 5 years incarceration for a third degree felony and also exceeded the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code1, which was 63.075 months imprisonment. The court granted the motion and resentenced Henderson to concurrent five-year prison sentences for each third degree felony, with no probation to follow.

However, there is a remaining sentencing error regarding the second degree felony sentences. The combined total of incarceration and probation (7 years plus 10 years on probation) exceeds the 15 year statutory maximum penalty for a second degree felony, and the lowest sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code does not exceed the statutory maximum penal*604ty. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.704(d)(25); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.704(d)(27)(B); *Leduc v. State,*803 So.2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Therefore, the split sentences totaling 17 years are unlawful.2

Henderson did not object to this sentencing error at sentencing or in his motion pursuant to rule 3.800(b). Thus we are barred from addressing this apparently fundamental sentencing error on appeal. *See Maddox v. State,*760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000); *Hayden v. State,*833 So.2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); *Copre v. State,*773 So.2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Henderson may, however, seek relief by raising this issue in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) to correct an illegal sentence. Whether this duplication of judicial effort furthers the purpose of *State v. Causey*and the Criminal Punishment Code is debatable. *See Washington v. State,*814 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), *rev. dismissed,*831 So.2d 675 (Fla.2002).

THOMPSON and PALMER, JJ., concur.

2

. Of course, the trial court could have achieved the same result lawfully, by imposing a term of probation on one conviction to follow sentences of incarceration on all the other convictions.

1

. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.704.
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2202

In connection with the Annual Report of Globetel Communications Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Timothy Huff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas Y. Jimenez,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to our knowledge:

1. the Report fully complies with the requirement 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.


Timothy Huff
Chief Executive Officer
April 27, 2004
# C_2022237EN.01000201.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2022 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-401/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Directive (EU) 2019/790 - Article 17(4), point (b), and point (c), in fine - Article 11 and Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Freedom of expression and information - Protection of intellectual property - Obligations imposed on online content-sharing service providers - Prior automatic review (filtering) of content uploaded by users)

(2022/C 237/02)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Wiącek and J. Sawicka, Agents, and by J. Barski, acting as expert)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: D. Warin, S. Alonso de León and W.D. Kuzmienko, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Alver, F. Florindo Gijón and D. Kornilaki, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by S. Centeno Huerta and J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, and subsequently by J. Rodríguez de la Rúa Puig, Agents), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères and A. Daniel, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented: initially by M.A. Capela de Carvalho Galaz Pimenta, P. Barros da Costa, P. Salvação Barreto and L. Inez Fernandes, and subsequently by M.A. Capela de Carvalho Galaz Pimenta, P. Barros da Costa and P. Salvação Barreto, Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, S.L. Kalėda, J. Samnadda and B. Sasinowska, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---
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 Innocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Tidwell, Chief Executive Officer 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 to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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.   Date: December 16, 2013  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
WALKER, et al. v. DRIVEN HOLDINGS, LLC

395A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 23, 2018

David C. Boggs, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Colin R. Stockton, Attorney at Law, for Walker, Ken, et al.

Michael W. Mitchell, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Jackson Wyatt Moore, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Driven Holdings, LLC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of January 2018 by Plaintiffs to Amend Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of January 2018."
Jeffrey A. BRUNGARD, Plaintiff, v. Dustin CANESTORP, Defendant.

No. COA17-503

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 7, 2017

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of General Media, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
C. Guccione, as Chief Executive Officer and the principal financial officer of
the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


      (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


April 30, 2003              /s/ R. Guccione
                            ---------------------------------------------------
                            Robert C. Guccione, Chief Executive Officer
                            (Principal Executive Officer and
                            Principal Financial Officer)
| ▪   | BroadVision France, S.A., organized under the laws of France |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Germany GmbH, organized under the laws of Germany |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision U.K., Ltd., organized under the laws of the United Kingdom |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Professional Services (formerly Fidutec Information Technology, SA), organized under the laws of Switzerland |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Srl, organized under the laws of Italy |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Asia Pacific Ltd., organized under the Companies Ordinance of Hong Kong |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Korea Company LTD., organized under the laws of Korea |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Argentina S.R.L., organized under the laws of Argentina |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Scandinavia AB, organized under the laws of Sweden |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Iberica S.A., organized under the laws of Spain |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision BV Limited, organized under the laws of Bermuda |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | Nihon BroadVision KK, organized under the laws of Japan |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | Interleaf GmbH, organized under the laws of Germany |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | Interleaf FSC, organized under the laws of the BVI. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision System PVT LTD., organized under the laws of India |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Delaware LLC, organized under the laws of the state of Delaware |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision Barbados Ltd., organized under the laws of Barbados |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|

| ▪   | BroadVision OnDemand (Beijing) Ltd., organized under the laws of China |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 17,459.

#### Ortega *v.*Kohler-McLister Paint Company et al.

(279 P. [2d] 845)

Decided February 7, 1955.

Messrs. Radinsky, Kripke & McLean, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Wood & Ris, for defendants in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed without written opinion.
BRUNS v. BRYANT, et al.

282P16-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Jenny Bruns, for Bruns, Jeremy, et al.

Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas M. Woodward, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina, et al.

John I. Malone, Jr., Attorney at Law, Brandon D. Zeller, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for USAA.

Jeremy Bruns

Philip H. Cheatwood, Attorney at Law, Fayetteville, for Bryant, Dalton (Jr.).

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of June 2017 by Plaintiffs for Reconsideration of Denied Motion to Reject, Dismiss, and Strike Response to Notice of Appeal and Petition for Discretionary Review by the Attorney General, Dismissing the Appeal as Moot, Dismissing the Notice of Appeal, and Denying Petition for Discretionary Review:

*394"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

No. 04-08-00135-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF E.V.M., 

A Child 

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2007-PA-00303 

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding 

Opinion by: Rebecca Simmons, Justice 

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice 

 Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice 

 Rebecca Simmons, Justice 

Delivered and Filed: October 15, 2008 

AFFIRMED 

This is an appeal concerning the trial court’s termination of Appellant Barbara’s parental 

rights to her child, E.V.M.1

 Barbara’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing 

a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to 

be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the 

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No. 04-03-00096-

CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying 

Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights). 

1

 To protect the privacy of the parties in this case, we identify the child by her initials and the child’s mother by her 

first name only. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (Vernon 2002). 
04-08-00135-CV 

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to Barbara, who was advised of her right to 

examine the record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. After reviewing the 

record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court 

is, therefore, affirmed. Furthermore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

Rebecca Simmons, Justice 

- 2 -
STATE of North Carolina v. Geoffrey Lewis WOMACK

No. COA17-635

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

NO ERROR.
<PAGE>

                                                               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

    I, Robert G. Burton, Sr., the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Cenveo, Inc. (the "Company"), certify pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

    (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and

    (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: February 28, 2007                     /S/  ROBERT G. BURTON, SR.
                                        --------------------------------------
                                                Robert G. Burton, Sr.
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive
                                                       Officer
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2999

___________

Brett A. Anderson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Thomas J. Vilsack, Governor, State of * Southern District of Iowa.

Iowa; Gary Maynard, Director of the *

Iowa Department of Corrections; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Lowell Brandt, Warden at the Iowa *

Medical and Classification Center; *

David Scurr, Security Director at the *

Iowa Medical and Classification *

Center; Michael Bogs, Correctional *

Officer at the Iowa Medical and *

Classification Center, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 17, 2008

 Filed: October 27, 2008

___________

Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa. 

-2-

Brett Anderson appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action and denial of his motion for reconsideration. After careful de novo review, see

Benton v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 524 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir. 2008), we conclude that

dismissal was proper for the reasons the district court stated. We also conclude that

the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Anderson’s motion to reconsider the

dismissal. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th

Cir. 2006) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, see 8th Cir.

R. 47B, and we deny Anderson’s request for appointment of counsel.

______________________________
In the MATTER OF: J.D.C.

No. COA16-1256

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 16, 2017

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   I, B. Alva Schoomer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Innocap, 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. I am 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 to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me 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; 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 materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  5. I have disclosed, based on my 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: November 27, 2007  /s/ B. Alva Schoomer B. Alva Schoomer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Joevelyn Heard-Leak, Petitioner v. N.C. State University Center for Urban Affairs, Respondent

No. COA15-1300

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 18, 2016

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
# C_2008128EN.01003702.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/37

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2008 — Simsalagrimm Filmproduktion v Commission of the European Communities and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

(Case T-314/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 128/79)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.

1

---