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

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5314 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 15-year recovery 

period for nonresidential real property in rural areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2010 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska (for himself and Mr. MARCHANT) 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 provide 

a 15-year recovery period for nonresidential real property 

in rural areas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 15-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD FOR NONRESIDEN4 TIAL REAL PROPERTY IN RURAL AREAS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 

6 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

7 to 15-year property) is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

8 end of clause (viii), by striking the period at the end of 

9 clause (ix) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding at the 

10 end the following new clause: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5314 IH

1 ‘‘(x) any nonresidential real property 

2 placed in service in a rural area (as de3 fined in section 1393(a)(2)).’’. 

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

5 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
**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 Otelco Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael D. Weaver, 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/
      Michael D.
      Weaver


Michael
      D. Weaver


Chief
      Executive Officer


June
      14,
      2007
**Exhibit
      32.1**






**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO** **18
      U.S.C. 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Guilin Paper, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Fangde
      Zhang, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer, and I, Mingzhu Zhang, in
      my
      capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. 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; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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





Date:
                August 14, 2007
            /s/
                Fangde ZhangFangde
                Zhang
              Chief
                Executive Officer/s/
                Mingzhu ZhangMingzhu
                Zhang
              Chief
                Financial Officer
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00814-CR

NO. 03-05-00815-CR

NO. 03-05-00816-CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

James Walter Ellis, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. D-1-DC-05-904151, D-1-DC-05-904157 & D-1-DC-05-904160,

HONORABLE WAYNE PATRICK PRIEST, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The State appeals the district court’s order quashing those portions of the indictments

against James Walter Ellis accusing him of conspiring to violate the election code. See Tex. Pen.

Code Ann. § 15.02 (West 2003); Tex. Elec. Code Ann. §§ 253.003, .094, .104 (West 2003). These

causes are companions to those before us in State v. DeLay, Nos. 03-05-00817-CR and 03-05-00818-

CR, decided this day, and raise the same issue: whether the penal code’s conspiracy provision

applied to the election code at the time of the alleged criminal conduct. For the reasons stated in

DeLay, we hold that it did not.
2

The district court’s order is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Waldrop

Affirmed

Filed: April 19, 2006

Do Not Publish
#### Jeanne BARBER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D02-4986.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 14, 2003.

*362COVINGTON, Judge.

Jeanne Barber challenges the order of the trial court denying her motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

In her motion, Barber alleged that she pleaded to trafficking in more than four but less than fourteen grams of hy-dromorphone. She further alleged that the three-year mandatory minimum term of imprisonment imposed by the trial court pursuant to section 893.135(l)(c)(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), is illegal based on our opinion- in *Taylor v. State,*818 So.2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA), *review dismissed,*821 So.2d 302 (Fla.2002). A claim that a mandatory minimum sentence was illegally imposed is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion where the error is apparent' on the face of the record. *See Sims v. State,*838 So.2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); *Leath v. State,*805 So.2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

*Taylor*held that chapter 99-188, Laws of Florida, which provided for the imposition of mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses, is unconstitutional because it violates the single subject rule of the Florida Constitution. In denying the motion, the trial court found: “As of April 29, 2002, the Florida Legislature has cured the single subject rule violation by re-enacting the provisions originally contained in Chapter 99-188. The reenactment was retroactive to July 1, 1999.” However, this court in *Green v. State,*839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), has since held that the reenactment of the sentencing provisions of chapter 99-188 cannot be applied retroactively because this would violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions.

Barber alleged that she committed the offense of trafficking in hydromor-phone in April 2001, which is within the *Taylor*window. *See Green,*839 So.2d at 750 n. 1. Therefore, she has presented a facially sufficient claim. *See Sims,*838 So.2d 658.

We reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further consideration of Barber’s claim. If Barber is correct that the trial court imposed a mandatory minimum pursuant to section 893.135(l)(c)(l)(a) where the offense was committed within the *Taylor*window, the trial court shall resentence her under the 1997 version of that statute. *See Green,*839 So.2d 748. *363We certify conflict with the Fourth and Fifth District cases with which we disagreed in *Green.*

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30788 Summary Calendar

__________________ MARY A. HARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-1074

- - - - - - - - - - January 18, 1996 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mary A. Harrison appeals the affirmance of the Commissioner's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. She argues that the Commissioner erred in applying the listings regarding disability for obesity. As Harrison did not meet the height-weight requirements for the listing, the Commissioner did not err. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 § 10.10 (A-E) (1993). Harrison also contends that the Commissioner did not give adequate weight to the opinion of aNo. 95-30788 -2- treating physician. The Commissioner is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion. The substantial medical and other evidence supports the Commissioner's conclusion that Harrison's impairments did not significantly circumscribe her ability to do light work.
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,146,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,405,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,551,000
<PP&E>                                      74,189,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,975,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              78,562,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,341,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       51,935,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       918,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,170,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                78,562,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,519,732
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,122,614
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,630,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,226,762)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (417,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (809,762)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (809,762)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.039)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.039)


</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1150

GLEASON INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC.

and PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

CENTRAL PURCHASING, LLC.,

Defendant-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade

in case no. 06-00089, Senior Judge Richard W. Goldberg.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of the United States' motion for a 43-day extension of time,

until May 22, 2009, to file its brief,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

APR 10 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly	

FILED Clerk	U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Matthew P. Jaffe, Esq.

Louis S. Mastriani, Esq.	 APR 1 0 2009

Courtney E. Sheehan, Esq.

JAN riUMMLY

CLERK

Date

cc:

s8
RCM Engineering, Inc.



March 21, 2011



Regent Technologies, Inc.
5646 Milton, Suite 722
Dallas, TX  75206


Gentlemen:


As an independent petroleum consultant, I hereby consent to the inclusion of our
report setting forth the estimates of the oil and gas reserve's and revenues
from the oil and gas reserves of Regent Natural Resources Co. as of December 31,
2010 in the form and context in which it appears, in the Annual Report on Form
10-K and to all references to our firm included in the Annual Report with,
with respect to the referenced report.

Very truly yours,


Richard McPherson
P.E. #47084

(214) 969-9111
5646 Milton, Suite 716
Dallas, Texas 75206
<Page>


                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports (and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of
this Registration Statement File No. 333-91931 for Hartford Life and Annuity
Insurance Company Separate Account Ten on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 10, 2002
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.5

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       OF

                        FIRST MERCHANTS CAPITAL TRUST III

     This Certificate of Trust is being executed as of December 12, 2001 for the
purposes of organizing a business trust pursuant to the Delaware Business Trust
Act, 12 Del. C. Sections 3801 et seq. (the "Act").

     The undersigned hereby certifies as follows:

1.   Name. The name of the business trust is "First Merchants Capital Trust III"
     (the "Trust").

2.   Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the Delaware trustee of
     the Trust meeting the requirements of Section 3807 of the Act are as
     follows:

     First Union Trust Company, National Association
     One Rodney Square
     920 King Street
     Suite 102
     Wilmington, Delaware 19801
     Attention: Corporate Trust Trustee Administration

3.   Effective. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective immediately upon
     filing in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned being all of the trustees of the Trust,
have duly executed this Certificate of Trust as of the day and year first above
written.

FIRST UNION TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
AS DELAWARE TRUSTEE

By:    /s/ Edward L. Truitt, Jr.
   --------------------------------------
   Name:   Edward L. Truitt, Jr.
        ---------------------------------
   Title:  Vice President
         --------------------------------

                                       -1-
<Page>

ADMINISTRATIVE TRUSTEE

     /s/ Michael L. Cox
-----------------------------------------
     Michael L. Cox

ADMINISTRATIVE TRUSTEE

     /s/ Larry R. Helms
-----------------------------------------
     Larry R. Helms, Esq.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRUSTEE

     /s/ Mark K. Hardwick
-----------------------------------------
     Mark K. Hardwick

                                       -2-
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS LEWIS ALSTON AND LARRY BATTLE

No. 748SC208

(Filed 15 May 1974)

Jury § 3— trial by thirteen jurors — prejudicial error

Defendants are entitled to a new trial where a thirteenth juror was selected and seated as an alternate, and participated in the deliberation of the case. G.S. 9-18.

Appeal from *Webb, Judge,*10 September 1973 Session of Wayne County Superior Court. Argued in the Court of Appeals 16 April 1974.

Defendants were tried jointly in identical bills of indictment with the offenses of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious bodily injury and armed robbery. Defendants pled not guilty to all charges, and twelve jurors were duly sworn and empanelled to try the case. A thirteenth juror was selected and seated as an alternate. Following the instructions given by the court, all thirteen jurors retired, deliberated and returned a verdict of guilty on all charges as to both defendants. All jurors, including the alternate, were polled and stated their acquiescence in the verdict. From the entry and signing of judgment defendants appealed.

*Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Sloan, for the State.*

*W. Dortch Langston, Jr., for Thomas Lewis Alston, defendant appellant.*

*Cecil P. Merritt for Larry Battle, defendant appellant.*

MORRIS, Judge.

Although defendants present several assignments of error, we limit our discussion to one of those assignments which, standing alone, entitles defendants to a new trial. G.S. 9-18 provides that alternate jurors shall be discharged upon the final submission of the case to the jury. The alternate juror in this case was not discharged at that point, although all twelve regularly empanelled jurors retired to the jury room. Examination of the appellate decisions reveals that this precise factual situation has rarely arisen. However, the Supreme Court in *White-*
      *545
      *hurst v. Davis,*3 N.C. 113 (1800), awarded a new trial where a caveat was tried by thirteen jurors.

> “It may be said, if thirteen concur in a verdict, twelve must necessarily have given their assent. But any innovation amounting in the least degree to a departure from the ancient mode may cause a departure in other instances, and in the end endanger or prevent this excellent institution from its usual course.” *Id.*

A decision that a deliberation by thirteen jurors is error is compelled both by the statute and by the appellate decisions of the State. Defendants are entitled to a

New trial.

Judges Campbell and Vaughn concur.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES LEE SUSWELL

No. 7526SC519

(Filed 3 December 1975)

Appeal by defendant from *Falls, Judge.*Judgment entered in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 September 1975.

Pursuant to Indictment No. 74CR60769, defendant was charged with felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny. From a plea of not guilty as to both counts, the jury returned a guilty verdict. From judgment sentencing him to a term of imprisonment, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Myron C. Banks, for the State.*

*Michael P. Carr for defendant appellant.*

MORRIS, HEDRICK and ARNOLD, Judges.

No error.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4982 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4982

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to clarify the 
coverage for congressional employees through Exchanges under title I of 
                               such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 2010

Mr. Posey (for himself, Mr. Linder, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Olson, Mr. 
   Bartlett, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Griffith, Mr. 
   Neugebauer, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. 
  Bonner, Mr. Akin, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Paul, Mrs. Myrick, and Mr. 
   Souder) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to clarify the 
coverage for congressional employees through Exchanges under title I of 
                               such Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Close the Congressional Health Care 
Loophole Act''.

SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF CONGRESSIONAL EMPLOYEES THROUGH EXCHANGES UNDER 
              TITLE I OF PPACA.

    (a) In General.--Section 1312(d)(3)(D)(ii)(II) of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by striking ``employed by 
the official office of a Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC 
or outside of Washington, DC'' and inserting ``of the Federal 
Government whose pay is disbursed under the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act for the fiscal year involved''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
as if included in the enactment of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act.
                                 <all>
```
<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 of Accredo Health, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David D.
Stevens, 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:

            (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/ David S. Stevens
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      David D. Stevens
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                                      September 30, 2002