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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 525 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the recapture rule 

of the first-time homebuyer credit and to extend the application of 

the credit through 2009. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2009 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia 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 repeal 

the recapture rule of the first-time homebuyer credit 

and to extend the application of the credit through 2009. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS OF FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER 

4 CREDIT. 

5 (a) REPEAL OF RECAPTURE RULE.—Section 36 of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to first-time 

7 homebuyer credit) is amended by striking subsection (f) 

8 (relating to recapture of credit) and redesignating subVerDate Nov 24 2008 03:29 Jan 16, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H525.IH H525

jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 525 IH

1 sections (g) and (h) as subsections (f) and (g), respec2 tively. 

3 (b) EXTENSION OF APPLICATION OF SECTION.— 

4 Subsection (g) of such Code (as redesignated by sub5 section (a)) is amended by striking ‘‘July 1, 2009’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘January 1, 2010’’. 

7 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 26(b)(2) of 

8 such Code is amended by adding ‘‘, and’’ at the end of 

9 subparagraph (U), by striking ‘‘, and’’ at the end of sub10 paragraph (V) and inserting a period, and by striking sub11 paragraph (W). 

12 (d) EFFECTIVE DATES.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to residences purchased on or after 

14 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 209 (Monday, October 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 62368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21599]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


National Advisory Council Public Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of the National 
Advisory Council will be hosting a public meeting via conference call 
to discuss such matters that may be presented by members, staff of the 
U.S. Small Business Administration, or interested others. The 
conference call will take place on Monday, November 21, 2005, at 3 p.m. 
eastern standard time. The call in number is 1-866-740-1260. To join, 
enter access code 3711001 at the prompt.
    Additionally, we will be using http://www.readytalk.com to offer a 
PowerPoint presentation. After logging onto the Web page, the access 
code is the same 3711001. Please log-in 5 minutes prior to the 
conference.
    Anyone wishing to participate or make an oral presentation to the 
Board must contact Balbina Caldwell, Director, National Advisory 
Council, no later than Friday, November 18, 2005, via e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c0e0d000e05020d420f0d00081b0900002c1f0e0d420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9bf9faf7f9f2f5fab5f8faf7ffecfef7f7dbe8f9fab5fcf4ed">[email protected]</span></a>; or phone: (202) 205-6914.

Matthew K. Becker,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21599 Filed 10-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### BEACHBOARD v. RAILWAY CO.

No. 137 PC.

Case below: 16 N.C. App. 671.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of of Appeals denied 6 March 1973.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5521 

To extend credits related to the production of electricity from offshore wind, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2010 

Mr. CASTLE (for himself, Mrs. DAHLKEMPER, and Mr. EHLERS) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend credits related to the production of electricity 

from offshore wind, 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. EXTENSION OF CREDITS RELATED TO THE 

4 PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY FROM OFF5 SHORE WIND. 

6 (a) EXTENSION FOR PRODUCTION CREDIT.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 

8 45(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

9 amended by inserting ‘‘(January 1, 2020, in the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5521 IH

1 case of any offshore facility)’’ after ‘‘and before Jan2 uary 1, 2013’’. 

3 (2) OFFSHORE FACILITY.—Section 45(e) of 

4 such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new paragraph: 

6 ‘‘(12) OFFSHORE FACILITY.—The term ‘off7 shore facility’ means any facility located in the in8 land navigable waters of the United States, includ9 ing the Great Lakes, or in the coastal waters of the 

10 United States, including the territorial seas of the 

11 United States, the exclusive economic zone of United 

12 States, and the outer Continental Shelf of the 

13 United States.’’. 

14 (b) EXTENSION FOR INVESTMENT CREDIT.—Clause 

15 (i) of section 48(a)(5)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code 

16 of 1986 is amended— 

17 (1) by striking ‘‘is placed in service in’’ and in18 serting ‘‘is— 

19 ‘‘(I) except as provided in sub20 clause (II), placed in service in’’, 

21 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert22 ing ‘‘, and’’, and 

23 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub24 clause: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5521 IH

1 ‘‘(II) in the case of an offshore 

2 facility (as defined in section 

3 45(e)(12)), such facility is placed in 

4 service after 2008 and before 2020.’’. 

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

6 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21328]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-
13.
    Bureau: International Trade Administration.
    Title: BISNIS Publication Subscription Form.
    Agency Form Number: N/A.
    OMB Number: 0625-0236.
    Type of Request: Regular Submission.
    Burden: 170.
    Number of Respondents: 2,000.
    Avg. Hours Per Response: 5 minutes.
    Needs and Uses: The International Trade Administration's (ITA) 
Business Information Service for the Newly Independent States (BISNIS) 
offers business intelligence and counseling to U.S. companies seeking 
to export or to invest in the countries of the Former Soviet Union. A 
critical component of the program is the dissemination of information 
regarding market conditions and opportunities in various industries and 
countries of the former Soviet Union. These information products 
provided by BISNIS are in the form of e-mails, faxes, and paper 
mailers. The Publication Subscription Form is a quick way for 
interested parties to tell BISNIS which products they want and their 
industry and country interests.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit, 
voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-7340.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#02664a7b6c676942666d612c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7d3ffced9d2dcf7d3d8d499d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f5b7e69767b404d706c6b747a6d5f70727d317a706f31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="783c190e111c272a170b0c131d0a3817151a561d1708561f170e">[email protected]</span></a> or fax at (202) 395-7285 within 30 days of 
publication of this Federal Register notice.

    Dated: October 20, 2005.
Madeleine Clayton,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21328 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-FP-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### WILLIAM J. LUCAS and ROGENE LUCAS, Appellants, v. LEHMAN M. PAGE, Respondent.

No. 7744

July 31, 1975

538 P.2d 165

*494
      *John Marshall,*Las Vegas, for Appellants.

*Ralph L. Denton,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The central issue in this appeal from a judgment on a promissory note is directed to the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motion to file a counterclaim.1 Appellants also contend the evidence does not support the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the trial court.

1. The proposed counterclaim was predicated on a default judgment in the amount of $33,363 obtained against respondent’s former wife by Las Vegas Insurance Adjustors, Inc., á corporation wholly owned by the appellants, William and Rogene Lucas.

Respondent’s liability to the corporation on the $33,363 default judgment against his former wife was exonerated by summary judgment in his favor, which was affirmed by this court. See Las Vegas Insurance Adjustors v. Page, 88 Nev. 16, 492 P.2d 616 (1972).

Appellants offer no legal theory upon which they might, either in their individual capacity or as stockholders of the corporation, have either an equal or different claim than the *495corporation against respondent; and, since respondent’s non-liability has already been adjudicated appellants were barred under the doctrine of *res judicata*from trying to relitigate the issue.

“The general principle announced in numerous cases is that a right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, as a ground of recovery, cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies; and even if the second suit is for a different cause of action, the right, question or fact once so determined must, as between the same parties or their privies, be taken as conclusively established, . . Southern Pacific Railr’d v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 48-49 (1897). Accord: Tomiyasu v. Golden, 81 Nev. 140, 400 P.2d 415 (1965); Smith v. Gray, 50 Nev. 56, 250 P. 369 (1926). See also, Baker v. Cummings, 181 U.S. 117 (1901); Kuiken v. Garrett, 51 N.W.2d 149 (Iowa 1952); and, Pakas v. Hollingshead, 77 N.E. 40 (N.Y. 1906), each of which hold the doctrine of *res judicata*applicable to a counterclaim or set-off.

2. The record adequately supports the findings of fact and conclusions of law; therefore, they will not be disturbed on appeal. See Western Indus., Inc. v. General Ins. Co., 91 Nev. 222, 533 P.2d 473 (1975), and cases cited therein.

Affirmed.

Appellants had previously sought pretrial appellate resolution of the issue. See Lucas v. Page, 89 Nev. 248, 510 P.2d 868 (1973).
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 209 (Monday, October 31, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21629]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 615

RIN 3052-AC22


Funding and Fiscal Affairs, Loan Policies and Operations, and 
Funding Operations; Investments, Liquidity, and Divestiture; Effective 
Date

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION: Notice of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) published a final rule 
under part 615 on August 31, 2005 (70 FR 51586). This final rule amends 
our liquidity reserve requirements for the banks of the Farm Credit 
System to ensure the banks have adequate liquidity. The final rule 
increases the minimum liquidity reserve requirement to 90 days, 
increases the eligible investment limit to 35 percent of total 
outstanding loans and requires Farm Credit banks to develop and 
maintain liquidity contingency plans. These amended requirements will 
improve the ability of Farm Credit banks to supply agricultural credit 
in all economic situations. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the 
effective date of the final rule is 30 days from the date of 
publication in the Federal Register during which either or both Houses 
of Congress are in session. Based on the records of the sessions of 
Congress, the effective date of the regulation is October 24, 2005.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The regulation amending 12 CFR part 615 published on 
August 31, 2005 (70 FR 51586) is effective October 24, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wade Wynn, Financial Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit 
Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4498, TTY (703) 883-
4434; or
Laura McFarland, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Farm 
Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TTY (703) 
883-4020.

    Authority: 12 U.S.C. 2252(a)(9) and (10)

    Dated: October 26, 2005.
Jeanette C. Brinkley,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 05-21629 Filed 10-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
# L_2007049EN.01003402.xml

| 17.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 49/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 49/34

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1997/2006 of 19 December 2006 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 379 of 28 December 2006
  )

The publication of the Regulation in the abovementioned Official Journal is annulled.

The publication of the same text as ‘Council Regulation (EC) No 1991/2006 of 21 December 2006
  ’ in OJ L 411, 30.12.2006, p. 18, remains valid.

(For technical reasons, this latter Regulation has been republished in OJ L 27, 2.2.2007, p. 11.)

---
#### FRANCIS GEITNER, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7754

May 14, 1975

535 P.2d 157

*Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, and *Michael R. Griffin,*Special Deputy Public Defender, for Appellant.

*William Macdonald,*District Attorney, Humboldt County, for Respondent.

*288OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This appeal from the district court order denying post-conviction relief asserts error in two respects: first, that the record shows that the prosecutor violated a plea bargaining agreement that he would recommend probation and, second, that the judge, in pronouncing sentence, relied upon an erroneous presentence report containing reference to nine rather than seven prior forgery convictions. Neither assertion has merit.

The appellant pleaded guilty to uttering a forged instrument. The prosecutor testified that he had not promised to recommend probation in exchange for the plea of guilty. To the contrary, he testified that in view of the appellant’s prior convictions for forgery his chance for probation was slim. Indeed, on this point, the appellant did not testify to a prose-cutorial promise, but only as to his impression of a conversation with the prosecutor about the subject of probation. In short, the record does not support his claim that his plea of guilty was the result of a plea bargain which the prosecutor violated. Barna v. Warden, 91 Nev. 268, 534 P.2d 499 (1975).

Neither does the record support his contention that the pre-sentence report with regard to the number of his prior convictions was erroneous. Although he believed that he had been convicted seven rather than nine times there is no proof to support such belief, and when asked about the accuracy of the report he stated, among other things, “Your honor, may I say that I won’t dispute the record, he has got it and I am sure that it is a true and valid record.”

Affirmed.
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

     In connection with the Annual Report of Cubic Energy,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, as  C.F.O.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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: September  28, 2007

Signature: /s/ Scott D. Guffey
          ----------------------
          Scott D. Guffey, C.F.O.
NO. 12-09-00450-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DARWIN CHARMAINE BOYD,

APPELLANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated kidnapping. We have received the trial 

court's certification showing that this is a plea bargain case and Appellant has no right to 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). The certification further shows that Appellant has 

waived the right to appeal. The certification is signed by Appellant and his counsel and 

is supported by the record. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

 BRIAN HOYLE__ 

 Justice

Opinion delivered February 26, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1011 

CA 14-00269 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

 

HAMILTON EQUITY GROUP, LLC, AS ASSIGNEE OF HSBC 

BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

 

V ORDER

BRIAN KUMAHOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS 

AS BKUMAHOR CONSULTING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,

ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

 

LAW OFFICES OF JASON A. SHEAR, LACKAWANNA (JASON A. SHEAR OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF, CUNNINGHAM & COPPOLA LLC, BUFFALO (ERIN L.

CODY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A.

Michalek, J.), entered April 26, 2013. The order, inter alia, granted

the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Supreme

Court. 

Entered: November 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# C_2007195EN.01000101.xml

| 23.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4792 — RREEF/Monterey/DRH)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 195/01)

On 9 August 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4792. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4792. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 66483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21828]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Certificates Of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air 
Carrier Permits; Weekly Applications

    Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) during the Week Ending October 14, 2005. The 
following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: OST-2005-22719.
    Date Filed: October 13, 2005.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: November 3, 2005.
    Description: Application of Safe Air International Inc. dba/ Island 
Express advising the Department that, in compliance with Section 204.7 
Safe Air International intents to resume scheduled passenger operations 
as a commuter carrier.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7548.
    Date Filed: October 13, 2005.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: November 3, 2005.
    Description: Application of Continental Airlines, Inc., requesting 
renewal of its Route 682 certificate authorizing it to provide 
scheduled air transportation of persons, property, and mail between 
Newark, NJ and Lima, Peru, via the intermediate point Bogota, Columbia.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7559.
    Date Filed: October 14, 2005.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: November 4, 2005.
    Description: Application of Atlas Air, Inc., requesting renewal of 
its experimental certificate of public convenience and necessity for 
Route 796, authorizing it to provide scheduled foreign air 
transportation of property and mail between the terminal point Miami, 
FL, on the one hand, via the intermediate point Lima, Peru, and the 
coterminal points Manaus, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, Brazil, on the 
other hand, and beyond Brazil to Santiago, Chile.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 05-21828 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P