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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4697 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4697

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
              remediation payments for hazardous drywall.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2010

Mr. Cao (for himself, Mr. Nye, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Taylor, and Mr. Posey) 
 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 exclude from gross income 
              remediation payments for hazardous drywall.

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

SECTION 1. HAZARDOUS DRYWALL REMEDIATION PAYMENT EXCLUDED FROM GROSS 
              INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after section 
139C the following new section:

``SEC. 139D. HAZARDOUS DRYWALL REMEDIATION PAYMENTS.

    ``Gross income shall not include any payment received from the 
Federal Government, or any State or local government, for the 
replacement of, or remediation relating to, hazardous or defective 
drywall installed in the principal residence (within the meaning of 
section 121) of the taxpayer after September 1, 2006, and before the 
date of the enactment of this Act.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to section 139C the following new item:

``139D. Hazardous drywall remediation payments.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to payments received after December 21, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

Certification

I, Robert H. Lorsch, certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MMRGlobal, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, and (ii) the information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of MMRGlobal, Inc.

|/s/ Robert H. Lorsch
|--------------------
|Name:               
|Title:              
|Date:               

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being "filed" as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or otherwise subject to liability under that section.
This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32.1 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19503]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. [thinsp]225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board 
has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and 
permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than October 14, 2005.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Patrick M. Wilder, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Ogden Bancshares, Inc., Ames, Iowa; to engage de novo in 
extending credit and servicing loans, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) 
of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 26, 
2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-19503 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
----

----

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/      Edward J.      Fritsch                            |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edward      J. FritschPresident      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| February 11, 2010                                      |   |

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Trejuan Marice WHITE

No. 367P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Craig M. Cooley, Attorney at Law, for White, Trejuan Marice.

Sharon Patrick-Wilson, Special Deputy Attorney General, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 23rd of October 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed Ex Mero Motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."

Upon consideration of the 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 30th of January 2019."
STATE v. Ervy L. JONES, Jr.

123A95-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Ervy L. Jones, Jr., for Jones, Ervy Lee. Jr.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for Jones, Ervy Lee. Jr.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of December 2018 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."
<PAGE>


Exhibit 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Cyber Public Relations, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Maria
Trinh, as President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of her knowledge, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


By:  /s/ Maria Trinh
---------------------------
Maria Trinh
President, CFO
April 7, 2003
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 29, 2020

a0921 

# Order

Clerk September 29, 2020

160421(54)

LANSING PARKVIEW, LLC,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant/Third

- Party Defendant

- Appellee,

v SC: 160421

COA: 344192

Ingham CC: 13

- 000723

- CK

K2M GROUP, LLC and DON L. KESKEY,

Defendants/Counterplaintiffs/Third

- Party Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

and

R OBERT REID and JOEL I. FERGUSON,

Third

- Party Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 29,

2020 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4772 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4772

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the nonbusiness 
          energy property credit to include insulated siding.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 4, 2010

Ms. Kilroy (for herself, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, and Ms. Fudge) 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 the nonbusiness 
          energy property credit to include insulated siding.

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

SECTION 1. NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY TO INCLUDE INSULATED SIDING.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 25C(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(E) any building cladding system (including vinyl 
                siding) with integral insulating material that has a 
                minimum thermal resistance of R-2.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to property placed in service after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The certification set forth below is being
submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”) for
the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley
Act of 2002.



I, Adrian Calaza, Chief Financial Officer
of TIM Participações S.A., certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



1.       the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and



2.       the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of TIM Participações S.A.



Dated:	April 10, 2017



| | By: | /s/ Adrian Calaza             
| | --- | ------------------------------
| |     | Name:	Adrian Calaza           
| |     | Title:	Chief Financial Officer
RE: EXPANSION OF ELECTRONIC FILING PILOT PROGRAM-COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Appellate Case No. 2015-002439

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 20, 2018

**545ORDER

Pursuant to the provisions of Article V, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution,

IT IS ORDERED that the Pilot Program for the Electronic Filing (E-Filing) of documents in the Court of Common Pleas, which was established by Order dated December 1, 2015, is **546expanded to include Orangeburg County. Effective July 17, 2018, all filings in all common pleas cases commenced or pending in Orangeburg County must be E-Filed if the party is represented by an attorney, unless the type of case or the type of filing is excluded from the Pilot Program. The counties currently designated for mandatory E-Filing are as follows:

?

Attorneys should refer to the South Carolina Electronic Filing Policies and Guidelines, which were adopted by the Supreme Court on October 28, 2015, and the training materials available on the E-Filing Portal page at *http://www.sccourts.org/efiling/* to determine whether any specific filings are exempted from the requirement that they be E-Filed. Attorneys who have cases pending in Pilot Counties are strongly encouraged to review, and to instruct their staff to review, the training materials available on the E-Filing Portal page.

*/s/ Donald W. Beatty*

Donald W. Beatty

Chief Justice of South Carolina
STATE of North Carolina v. Jimmy Lee FORTE, Jr.

No. 223PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Hannah H. Love, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Forte, Jimmy Lee.

Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of July 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 18th of July 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."
#### STATE ex rel. Anthony RICHARD v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2069.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Richard, Anthony;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 6-98-285; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2001 KW 2646.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.
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. 08-20601

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT DANIEL DAVIS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-140-1

Before KING, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Daniel Davis, federal prisoner # 97410-079, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his motion to vacate as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion. Davis’s motion to vacate sought to challenge his 2001 conviction

and sentence due to lack of subject matter and territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the

motion was properly construed as arising under § 2255. See Tolliver v. Dobre,

211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Davis’s motion was properly

construed as arising under § 2255, this court lacks jurisdiction over the instant

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 17, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20601

2

appeal absent a certificate of appealability (COA) ruling in the district court.

See United States v. Youngblood, 116 F.3d 1113, 1114-15 (5th Cir. 1997). The

district court did not construe Davis’s notice of appeal as a COA request.

However, this court declines to remand this case in light of the patent frivolity

of Davis’s appeal. See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir.

2000). Accordingly, the instant appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
ARMSTRONG v. WILSON COUNTY, et al.

41P17-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Arthur O. Armstrong, for Armstrong, Arthur O.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of November 2018 by Plaintiff for Petition for Rehearing:

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

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 8, 2014

No. 04-12-00663-CV

UNITED RESOURCES, L.P.,

Appellant

v.

SEPCO TUBULARS, Padre Tubulars Inc., Jesse Ortega and Collinsworth Well Treatment, Inc.,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 05-10-13092CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

This appeal was originally set for submission on September 10, 2013. The appeal is 

withdrawn from submission. The appeal will be resubmitted on January 9, 2014, for a decision 

on briefs before the following panel: Chief Justice Stone, Justice Marion, and Justice Chapa. 

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED: ____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
STATE of North Carolina v. Roderick Jerome WOOTEN

No. 395P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Roderick Jerome Wooten, for Wooten, Roderick Jerome.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 5th of November 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Durham County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of November 2018 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of November 2018 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."
#### Titus BARBER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D02-2196.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 13, 2003.

Fisher, Lawrence & Malove, and Andrew M. Teschner, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Frederieka Sands, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FLETCHER, RAMIREZ, and WELLS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Titus Barber appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion in which he raises four instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. However, in its order denying the motion, the trial court only addressed three issues. We therefore remand so that the trial court may address Barber’s fourth issue, ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to request a jury instruction pertaining to guilty knowledge of the controlled substance. *See Currelly v. State,*801 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); *Hurley v. State,*779 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (trial court orders which do not address all of the claims for post-conviction relief will be remanded for entry of an order which does).
STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy A. NOBLE

No. COA18-299

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 4, 2018

NO ERROR.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ressie CHERAMIE.

No. 2003-KK-1607.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Cheramie, Ressie;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 371587; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 KW 0708.

The ruling of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the ruling of the trial court is reinstated.

WEIMER, J., recused.
# C_2015089EN.01002201.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/22

---

Order of the General Court of 29 January 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM — Gamepoint (SPIN BINGO)

(Case T-665/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark ‘SPIN BINGO’ - Earlier Community word mark ‘ZITRO SPIN BINGO’ - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 089/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Gamepoint BV (The Hague, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2013 (Case R 1388/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Zitro IP Sàrl and Gamepoint BV.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Dismisses the action of Zitro IP Sàrl. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action of Zitro IP Sàrl.

| 2. | Orders Zitro IP Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zitro IP Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.

1

---