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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4647 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4647

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the alternative 
  tax liability limitation for small property and casualty insurance 
                               companies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2014

  Mr. Paulsen (for himself, Mr. Schock, 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 increase the alternative 
  tax liability limitation for small property and casualty insurance 
                               companies.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN LIMITATION FOR ALTERNATIVE TAX LIABILITY FOR 
              SMALL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANIES.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 831(b)(2)(A) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(i) the net written premiums (or, if 
                        greater, direct written premiums) for the 
                        taxable year do not exceed $2,025,000, and''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Paragraph (2) of section 831(b) of such 
Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any 
                taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2014, 
                the dollar amount set forth in subparagraph (A) shall 
                be increased by an amount equal to--
                            ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                            ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment 
                        determined under section 1(f)(3) for such 
                        calendar year by substituting `calendar year 
                        2013' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph 
                        (B) thereof.
                If the amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence 
                is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be 
                rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1,000.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE ex rel. Elijah WINZY v. 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

No. 2002-CI-2126.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Winzy, Elijah;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial *1029Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 435,-216; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 99 CW 2772.

Denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS 

We herebyconsent the use in the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (No. 333-930, No. 333-52089, No. 333-44724, No. 333-114567, No. 333-125858, and No. 333-125913) on Form S-3ASR (No. 333-134286, No. 333-149856, and No. 333-158635)on Form S-4 (No. 333-127274-1) and on Forms S-8 (No. 333-24971, No. 333-55062, No. 333-125857, and No. 333-149872) of Regency Centers Corporation and on Form S-3ASR (No. 333-149856) and on Form S-4 (No. 333-127274) of RegencyCenters, L.P. of our report dated March 31, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Macquaire Countrywide-Regency II, LLC, which appears in this Form 10-K/A of Regency Centers Corporation dated March 31, 2010.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers 

McLean, VA 

March 31, 2010
#### Dorothy M. DiSanto, Respondent, v Frank J. DiSanto, Appellant.

[720 NYS2d 160]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated November 16, 1999, as, upon renewal, adhered to so much of an order of the same court dated June 8, 1999, granting that branch of the motion of the plaintiff wife which was for interim counsel fees in the sum of $10,000, and expert fees in the sum of $15,000, and directed him to deposit into escrow the proceeds from the sale of any real property pending further order of the court.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Domestic Relations Law § 237 (a) (5) gives the court the discretion to direct the payment of counsel fees and expenses “as justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties.” Upon renewal, the court appropriately reduced its awards to the plaintiff upon the defendant’s showing that she failed to disclose the true extent of her net worth. Contrary to the husband’s contentions, in light, *inter alia,*of his vastly greater wealth and the valuation issues to be determined, the court properly denied so much of his application as sought to eliminate the entire award *(see, DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879; *Charpie v Charpie,*271 AD2d 169; *Celauro v Celauro,*257 AD2d 588; *Piali v Piali,*247 AD2d 455; *Lieberman v Lieberman,*187 AD2d 567). Moreover, the court providently exercised its discretion in directing him to deposit into escrow the proceeds from the sale of any real property pending further order of the court, to protect the plaintiffs right to equitable distribution *(see, Zaharopoulos v Zaharopoulos,*262 AD2d 312; *Meyer v Meyer,*229 AD2d 354; *Rogers v Rogers,*161 AD2d 754; *Guttman v Guttman,*129 AD2d 537). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.07

SCHEDULE OF OMITTED AUTHORIZATIONS FOR PERSONAL MOBILE SERVICES

As these agreements are identical in every case except for their reference number
and the sector covered by them, we have, for ease of reference, filed only the relevant standard authorization for personal mobile services approved by ANATEL and provided this schedule to indicate the authorizations that we have omitted from filing
as exhibits to this annual report on Form 20-F.



|1. | Statement of Authorization for Personal Mobile Services between ANATEL and TNL PCS S.A., No. 016/2007, dated December 7, 2007.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Statement of Authorization for Personal Mobile Services between ANATEL and Brasil Telecom Celular S.A., No. 026/2002, dated December 18, 2002.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Statement of Authorization for Personal Mobile Services between ANATEL and Brasil Telecom Celular S.A., No. 027/2002, dated December 18, 2002.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | Statement of Authorization for Personal Mobile Services between ANATEL and Brasil Telecom Celular S.A., No. 028/2002, dated December 18, 2002.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE of North Carolina v. Gabriel Arthur THABET

No. 365A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Katherine Whitney Dickinson-Schultz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Thabet, Gabriel Arthur.

J. Rick Brown, Associate Attorney General, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 23rd of October 2018 by Defendant in this matter 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 5th of December 2018."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roger Coy, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 899]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (LaBuda, J.), rendered February 19, 1999, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Following defendant’s plea of guilty to driving while intoxicated, County Court sentenced him to a 60-day jail term and five years’ probation. The court further directed that defendant pay restitution in the amount of $3,500 to the victim in monthly installments of $100. Defendant was subsequently brought before County Court on a declaration of delinquency which alleged numerous violations of his probation conditions, including the failure to pay restitution as directed (the declaration notes, however, that defendant had paid $301 toward restitution). Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to violating probation and was sentenced to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. The monetary component of the original sentence was continued with County Court ordering defendant to pay the balance due the victim, namely, $3,199.*

Not only did defendant waive the right to appeal the original conviction, he did not appeal or otherwise challenge the original conviction or the sentence imposed thereunder. Thus, his present challenge to the amount of restitution imposed, particularly his claim that a hearing should have been held to verify the victim’s actual loss, is foreclosed *(see, People v Panek,*256 AD2d 1238, *lv denied*93 NY2d 856; *People v Ambriati,*239 AD2d 948, *lv denied*90 NY2d 901; *People v Holmes,*226 AD2d 1122, *lv denied*88 NY2d 966; *People v Rutnik,*198 AD2d 617; *see also, People v Stedge,*250 AD2d 880; *People v Hosien,*204 AD2d 658, *lv denied*83 NY2d 1004). We have reviewed defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the context of the parole violation proceeding and find it to be without merit, as the record reveals that he in fact received meaningful representation *(see, People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796).

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. *795Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 This sum obviously represents the amount of restitution imposed ($3,500) less the amount actually paid by defendant ($301).
STATE v. Mollie Elizabeth B. MCDANIEL

161A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 18, 2018

Gilda C. Rodriguez, Attorney at Law, for McDaniel, Mollie Elizabeth B.

Deborah Greene, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Ted Bell, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 13th of July 2018 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of July 2018."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 8th day of August 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Joseph BARRON and Thomasina Barron, Plaintiffs, v. Issa Ibrahim RAFIDI, Defendant.

No. COA17-879

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

DISMISSED.
#### Eldridge P. PIERCE, et al. v. REILY-BENTON COMPANY, INC., et al. David Poche, et al. v. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., et al.

No. 2003-CC-1381.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Amax Metals Recovery, Inc.; Murphy Oil USA, Inc.; — Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. E, Nos. 92-041, 92-040; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No(s). 02-C-2253, 02-C-2367.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 3

- 0322 LT Case No. 16

- 2021

- 001049

- AXXX

_____________________________
D ONALD L EE T OLBERT , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. London M. Kite , Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Betty Wyatt, Assistant Public Defender
, Daytona Beach , for Appellant.

Ashley Mo o dy, Attorney General
, and Adam B. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General
, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

December 19, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
J AY , B OATWRIGHT , and P RATT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
Olivia JENKINS, Employee, Plaintiff v. EASTER SEALS UCP OF NORTH CAROLINA & VIRGINIA, INC., Employer, Brickstreet Mutual Insurance, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA17-540

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: February 6, 2018

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina, v. Andrea Deneen CROWDER, Defendant.

No. COA17-393

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 21, 2018

NO ERROR.
No. 85-1629.

#### International Molders & Allied Workers Union, AFL-CIO, et al. *v.*Howard et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Brennan, Justice White, and Justice Marshall would grant certiorari.
STATE of North Carolina v. Marvin Louis MILLER, Jr.

No. 268P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Leslie C. Rawls, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Miller, Marvin Louis (Jr.).

James D. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, Trey Robison, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of August 2018 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 23rd of August 2018 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 5th of December 2018."
CONSUMER CREDIT RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA et al.

A17A0620

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

August 15, 2018

Thurbert E. Baker, Nathan Lewis Garroway, Mark Adam Silver, Atlanta, for Appellant.

Christopher Michael Carr, Atlanta, Jennifer Colangelo, Megan Poitevint Mitchell, Henry Chalmers, Atlanta, for Appellee.

Barnes, Presiding Judge.

*188In *Consumer Credit Research Foundation v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga.* , 341 Ga.App. 323, 800 S.E.2d 24 (2017), this Court construed *Bowers v. Shelton* , 265 Ga. 247, 453 S.E.2d 741 (1995) to mean that state agencies do not have the discretion to publicly release records covered by any of the specific exemptions to disclosure listed in OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) of Georgia's Open Records Act (the "Act"). Based on that construction of *Bowers* , this Court vacated the trial court's summary judgment order and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the records at issue in the case were covered by one or both of the specific statutory exemptions for materials related to academic research so as to bar disclosure of those records. *Consumer Credit Research Foundation* , 341 Ga.App. at 329, 800 S.E.2d 24. See OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (35) and (36).

The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari, disapproved of this Court's interpretation of *Bowers* , and reversed the judgment of this Court. *Campaign for Accountability v. Consumer Credit Research Foundation* , 303 Ga. 828, 815 S.E.2d 841 (2018). The Supreme Court held that OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) of the Act does not bar a state agency from publicly releasing records, unless the specific exemption listed in the statute that covers the records at issue expressly prohibits disclosure. *Campaign for Accountability* , 303 Ga. at 830-34 (2), 815 S.E.2d 841. Because *189the specific exemptions for materials related to academic research ( OCGA § 50-18-72 (a) (35) and (36) ) do not expressly prohibit disclosure, the Supreme Court held that the records at issue in this case are not subject to any prohibition against disclosure under the Act. *Campaign for Accountability* , 303 Ga. at 837-38 (4), 815 S.E.2d 841.

Accordingly, in light of the Supreme Court's decision, we vacate our prior judgment, adopt the decision of the Supreme Court as our own, and affirm the trial court's summary judgment order.

*Judgment affirmed.*

McMillian and Mercier, JJ., concur.
In the MATTER OF: M.V. and M.V.

No. COA18-128

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

AFFIRMED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4626 

To ensure access to certain information for financial services industry 

regulators, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2014 

Mrs. CAPITO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To ensure access to certain information for financial services 

industry regulators, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SAFE Act Confiden5 tiality and Privilege Enhancement Act’’. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4626 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION SHARED BE2 TWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL FINANCIAL 

3 SERVICES REGULATORS. 

4 Section 1512(a) of the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing 

5 Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5111(a)) is amended by inserting 

6 ‘‘or financial services’’ before ‘‘industry’’. 

Æ 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Margaret DICKSON, et al. v. Robert RUCHO, et al.

North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, et al. v. The State of North Carolina, et al.

No. 201PA12-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2017

*231*AMENDED ORDER*

On 30 May 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and vacated and remanded this Court's judgment in *Dickson v. Rucho* , 368 N.C. 481, 781 S.E.2d 404 (2015), *modified* , 368 N.C. 757, 368 N.C. 673, 789 S.E.2d 436 (2016) (order). *Dickson v. Rucho* , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2186, 198 L.Ed.2d 252 (2017) (mem.). The Supreme Court's instruction to this Court is to review *Dickson* "for further consideration in light of *Cooper v. Harris* , 581 U.S. ---- [137 S.Ct. 1455, 197 L.Ed.2d 837] (2017)." *Id.* at 2186, 198 L.Ed.2d at 252. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's remand and instruction, and after careful consideration, this Court remands this case to the trial court to determine whether (1) in light of *Cooper v. Harris* and *North Carolina v. Covington* , a controversy exists or if this matter is moot in whole or in part; (2) there are other remaining collateral state and/or federal issues that require resolution; and (3) other relief may be proper. *See**Cooper v. Harris* , 581 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1455, 197 L.Ed.2d 837 (2017) ; *North Carolina v. Covington* , 581 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 1624, 198 L.Ed.2d 110 (2017) (per curiam); *North Carolina v. Covington* , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2211, 198 L.Ed.2d 655 (2017) (mem.).

By order of the Court in Conference, this the *9th* day of October, 2017.
# Official Journal C 372A/11 O

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 372A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5911 October 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 372A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5911 October 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 372 A/01 | Vacancy notice for the position of Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Helsinki (Temporary Agent — Grade AD 14) — COM/2016/20017 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2016/C 372 A/01

Vacancy notice for the position of Executive Director of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — Helsinki (Temporary Agent — Grade AD 14) — COM/2016/20017

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7330

MAURICE PAUL BROOKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus TRACY RAY, Warden, Augusta Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-131-7) Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: December 1, 2004 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Paul Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Maurice Paul Brooks appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Brooks has not made the requisite showing. We, therefore, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trust 1998-2
$ 153,615,935.94 5.91% Auto Receivables Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 2000




           PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
              DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %
          ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-2000   3,689,962     386,151     543,812    8.73%   10,380,930   13.89%
 Feb-2000   3,385,574     367,978     597,154   10.05%    9,908,407   13.89%
 Mar-2000   3,623,461     351,304     443,583    7.86%    7,649,558   11.30%
 Apr-2000   4,114,969     333,459     571,383   10.78%    6,512,106   10.24%
 May-2000   3,208,873     313,193     369,917    7.35%    6,589,076   10.91%
 Jun-2000   3,116,380     297,389     406,000    8.51%    7,445,886   13.00%
 Jul-2000   2,936,576     282,041     191,705    4.23%    6,688,074   12.31%
 Aug-2000   2,777,519     267,578     281,867    6.56%    6,608,075   12.82%
 Sep-2000   2,851,347     253,899     198,069    4.88%    6,438,778   13.22%
 Oct-2000   2,669,400     239,856     297,331    7.75%    5,856,965   12.72%
 Nov-2000   2,740,992     226,709     266,819    7.40%    6,169,510   14.25%
 Dec-2000   2,529,052     213,210     279,766    8.24%    6,416,876   15.74%
          ____________ ___________ ___________
   Totals  37,644,106   3,532,767   4,447,406

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the
      information is from activity of the previous month.