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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4429 

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

subpart F exemption for active financing income. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2014 

Mr. TIBERI (for himself, Mr. NEAL, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. LARSON

of Connecticut, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. KIND, Mr. NUNES, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. REED, Ms. 

LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Mr. YOUNG of Indiana, and Mr. 

THOMPSON of California) 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 subpart F exemption for active financing income. 

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 SUBPART F EXEMPTION FOR AC4 TIVE FINANCING INCOME. 

5 (a) BANKING, FINANCING, OR SIMILAR BUSI6 NESSES.—Subsection (h) of section 954 of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for income 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4429 IH

1 derived in the active conduct of banking, financing, or 

2 similar businesses) is amended by striking paragraph (9). 

3 (b) INSURANCE BUSINESSES.—Subsection (e) of sec4 tion 953 of such Code (relating to exempt insurance in5 come) is amended by striking paragraph (10) and by re6 designating paragraph (11) as paragraph (10). 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to taxable years of a foreign cor9 poration beginning after December 31, 2013, and to tax10 able years of United States shareholders with or within 

11 which such taxable years of such foreign corporation end. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Charles Thomas SELL, Appellant.

No. 01-1862.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Sept. 2, 2003.

Dorothy Lear McMurtry, Howard J. Marcus, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Barry A. Short, Lewis & Rice, St. Louis, MO, Lee Lawless, Federal Public Defender’s Office, St. Louis, MO, Charles Thomas *951Sell, U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, MO, for Defendant-Appellant.

Karen B. Tripp, Houston, TX, Richard Glen Boire, Center for Cognitive Liberty & Ethics, Davis, CA, Andrew L. Schlafly, AAPS General Counsel, Far Hills, NJ, Denise D. Lieberman, ACLU of Eastern Missouri, St. Louis, MO, Peter A. Joy, St. Louis, MO, Grant J. Shostak, Moline & Shostak, St. Louis, MO, for Amici on behalf of Appellant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, this court’s opinion and judgment of March 7, 2002, are vacated. It is further ordered that the order of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Mandate shall issue forthwith.

(5361-010199)
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-120692), the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-94782), the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-22211), the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-43267), the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-39282),
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-65592), and the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-125571) of Liberty Property Trust and Liberty
Property Limited Partnership and in the related Prospectuses of our reports
dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Liberty Property Limited Partnership, Liberty Property Limited
Partnership management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Liberty Property Limited Partnership, included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

                                                     /s/  Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 10, 2006
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CORNELIUS LOPES,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

KEVIN DELEON; NANCY PELOSI; GAVIN NEWSOM; MARIA ELENA DURAZO; ELOISE GOMEZ REYES; JOAQUIN CASTRO; JANET NAPOLITANO; TONI ATKINS; ELENI KOUNALAKIS; ROBERT HERTZBERG; SHANNON GROVE; WILLIAM SCOTT; CONNIE LEYVA; MIKE MCGUIRE; JIM NIELSEN; ERIKA CONTRERAS;
KAT RINA RODRIQUEZ; XAVIER BECERRA; ALEX PADILLA, Secretary of State of California; BOD ARCHULETA; LORI COX; ANISSA BASOCO

VILLAREAL; CARL GUARDINO; BRIAN BRENNAN; PATRICK YOES; FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE; PATRICK LYNCH; POLICE
BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF THE
CIT Y OF NEW YORK,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 16476

D.C. No. 3:20

- cv

- 07758

- CRB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

FEB 22 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 16476 Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 1 4 , 2023 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Cornelius Lopes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging various federal and state law claims . We have jurisdiction

u nder 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to comply with

the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Pickern v. Pier 1

Imports (U.S.), Inc. , 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lopes ’s action for failure to comply

with Rule 8 (a) because Lopes’s operative complaint was vague, confusing, and

failed to allege clearly the bases for his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)

(requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne

, 84 F.3d 1172, 117 7 (9th

Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8 bec ause it was

“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant” )

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further leave to

amend and striking Lopes’s proposed amended complaint because the proposed

amended complain t did not comply with Rule 8(a)

. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).3 21

- 16476

Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc. , 637 F.3d 1047, 1058

- 59 (9th Cir. 2011) ( explaining

that denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion where proposed

pleading failed to comply with Rule 8 ); Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc. , 627

F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court has inherent power to control its

docket, including power to strike items from the docke t).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.2



Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Empresa Brasileira de Telecomunicações S.A.  Embratel (the Company), does hereby
certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: June 29,
2005



/s/ Carlos Henrique
MoreiraName:

Carlos Henrique MoreiraTitle:

Chief Executive Officer




Date: June 29, 2005



/s/ Isaac
BerensztejnName:

Isaac BerensztejnTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                        4716
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        5406
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                              5489
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 35,729
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      36,095
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        35,729
<LOANS>                                    287,611
<ALLOWANCE>                                  (1716)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             392,765
<DEPOSITS>                                 233,203
<SHORT-TERM>                                48,261
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,912
<LONG-TERM>                                 54,341
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        26
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,022
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             392,765
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             18,437
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            5,159
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               564
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            24,160
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           9,260
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,523
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       10,377
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  399
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             234
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              8,759
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,769
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,062
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .47
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                3.26
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,099
<LOANS-PAST>                                 2,044
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                809
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                              (774)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   34
<RECOVERIES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                           (1,716)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                        (1,716)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0
        

</TABLE>
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff, v. Lee Lebrun CHAPMAN and Peggy Hodge Chapman Trustees of the Chapman Family Trust Established August 20, 1996, Defendants.

No. COA17-597

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 20, 2018

AFFIRMED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1288** 
In re: TERRELL ROGERS, a/k/a Tavon , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. (1:09

- cr - 00467

- WMN

- 1; 1:13

- cv - 00116

- WMN)

Submitted : July 2 9 , 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. Terrell Rogers, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terrell Rogers petitions for a writ of mandamus on two grounds
. First, Rogers appears to allege undue delay by the district court in ruling on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion . He seeks an order from this court d irecting the district to act. We conclude that the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district
court. Next, Rogers also requests that this court modify or vacate the district court’s order denying his first § 2255 motion. Mandamus relief i s a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitione r has a clear right to the relief sought , In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988) , and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Rogers i s not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis , we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ASCEND COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000921146
<NAME> ASCEND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         442,625
<SECURITIES>                                   237,330
<RECEIVABLES>                                  414,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,467
<INVENTORY>                                    197,896
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,477,071
<PP&E>                                         528,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                 246,358
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,531,478
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          426,286
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           220
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,093,924
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,531,478
<SALES>                                      1,478,682
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,478,682
<CGS>                                          543,971
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  543,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               845,818
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (28,102)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                116,995
<INCOME-TAX>                                   136,649
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (19,654)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19,654)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
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





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 of Pure Biofuels Corp.
(the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      August 14, 2009/s/
      Gustavo
      GoyzuetaGustavo
      Goyzueta, Chief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Pure Biofuels Corp. and will
be retained by Pure Biofuels Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________**
No. 23

- 10172 Summary Calendar

**____________ Bueford James Friemel,** 

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus
**Cesar Deleon; Randall County Sheriff; Cornerstone Surveyor; Sierra Towing and Crushing; Frederic M.**  **Wolfram Firm; Wright Law; Randall County Internal Affairs; Randall County Sheriff and Administration;**  **Darrell R. Carey,** Lawyer **,** Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:22

- CV

- 174

**______________________________** Before **King ,**  **Southwick,** and **Higginson ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
Bueford James Friemel , acting pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his suit without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 28, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10172 Document: 00516837595 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023No. 23

- 10172

2 4(m) for failing to show good cause as to his failure to timely serve defendants. We review the district court’s dismissal under Rule 4(m) for an abuse of discretion. Thrasher v. City of Amarillo , 709 F.3d 509, 512 ( 5th Cir. 2013). On appeal, Friemel concedes that he did not serve defendants in a timely manner or show good cause as to this failure but states that he was unaware that he had to show good cause because he was denied counsel, denied a time extension, and is appearing pro se. However, Friemel does not

argue that the district court improperly denied him counsel or a time extension, and our review of the record indicates that Friemel’s motions seeking such treatment were correctly denied

. Furthermore, “[a] litigant’s pro se status neither excuses his failure to effect service nor excuses him for lack of knowledge of the Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. (footnote omitted). Accordingly, we find no error in the district court’s without

- prejudice dismissal of this suit.

**AFFIRMED**

. Case: 23-10172 Document: 00516837595 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2023
<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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of DSA Financial Corporation (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the
"Report"), I, Edward L. Fischer, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
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 condition and results of operations of
        the Company.


                                        /s/ Edward L. Fischer
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Edward L. Fischer
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  May 15, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to DSA Financial Corporation and will be retained by DSA Financial
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Gurney B. HARRIS, Employee v. SOUTHERN COMMERCIAL GLASS, Employer, Auto Owners Insurance, Carrier, and Southeastern Installation, Inc., Employer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, Carrier

No. 346P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2017

*751Jonathan C. Anders, Attorney at Law, Tara D. Muller, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Southeastern Installation, Inc., et al.

Ray H. Womble, III, Attorney at Law.

Michael A. Swann, Attorney at Law, Lexington, for Harris, Gurney B.

Viral V. Mehta, Attorney at Law, Carl M. Short, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Southern Commercial Glass, et al.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of September 2016 by Defendants (Southeastern Installation, Inc and Cincinnati Insurance Co.) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants (Southeastern Installation Inc., and Cincinnati Insurance Co.) on the 19th of September 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of September 2016 by Defendants (Southeastern Installation Inc., and Cincinnati Insurance Co.) to Hold Petition for Discretionary Review in Abeyance:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of February 2017 by Defendant (Southeastern Installation, Inc., and Cincinnati Insurance Co.) for Leave to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of May 2017."