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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 531 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 531

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make an exception to the 
 100 shareholder S corporation limitation in the case of shareholders 
   whose shares were acquired through certain crowd-funding or small 
                           public offerings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 13, 2017

  Mr. Hill (for himself and Mr. Schweikert) 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 make an exception to the 
 100 shareholder S corporation limitation in the case of shareholders 
   whose shares were acquired through certain crowd-funding or small 
                           public offerings.

    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 ``S-Corp Access to Crowdfunding Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO S CORPORATION SHAREHOLDER LIMITATION IN CASE OF 
              CROWD-FUNDING AND SMALL PUBLIC OFFERINGS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1361(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(7) Treatment of shares acquired through crowd-funding 
        and small public offerings.--The number of shareholders of the 
        corporation shall be determined under subsection (b)(1)(A) 
        without regard to any individual who has only acquired shares 
        in the corporation through--
                    ``(A) a public offering that meets the terms and 
                conditions set forth in Regulation A promulgated by the 
                Securities and Exchange Commission (17 C.F.R. 230.251 
                et seq.), or
                    ``(B) one or more transactions described in section 
                4(a)(6) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 
                77d(a)(6)).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2010239EN.01000101.xml

| 4.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5940 — Groupe Plastic Omnium/Inergy Automotive Systems)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 239/01

On 31 August 2010, 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 French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5940. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5940. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

ADARYLL BROWN, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

CASE NO. 1:11cv16-MMP/WCS

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner, Social

Security Administration,

Defendant.

______________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Defendant has moved for reversal of the decision of the Commissioner,

entry of judgment pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and remand of this

cause to the Commissioner. Doc. 17. Plaintiff does not oppose a sentence four

remand and the motion should be granted. A sentence four remand is discretionary,

but requires that the court enter "a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the

decision of the Commissioner." The proper option in this case is to reverse the

Commissioner's decision and remand. Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct.

2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991).

Case 1:11-cv-00016-MP-WCS Document 18 Filed 08/09/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the court GRANT Defendant's motion to

remand, doc. 17, DIRECT the Clerk to enter final judgment REVERSING the

Commissioner's decision to deny benefits, and REMAND the application to the

Commissioner for rehearing pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the

purposes stated in the motion.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 9, 2011.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10

days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections

limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 1:11cv16-MP/WCS

Case 1:11-cv-00016-MP-WCS Document 18 Filed 08/09/11 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 42 Filed 06/15/11 Page 1 of 9
Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 42 Filed 06/15/11 Page 2 of 9
Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 42 Filed 06/15/11 Page 3 of 9
Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 42 Filed 06/15/11 Page 4 of 9
Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 42 Filed 06/15/11 Page 5 of 9
Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 42 Filed 06/15/11 Page 6 of 9
Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 42 Filed 06/15/11 Page 7 of 9
Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 42 Filed 06/15/11 Page 8 of 9
Case 3:11-cv-00142-RV-CJK Document 42 Filed 06/15/11 Page 9 of 9
Order entered June 17, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 13
- 01360
- CV HIGH REV POWER, L.L. C., Appellant
V.
MASSIMO MOTOR SPORTS , LLC, ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 12
- 07411
- D 

### O RDER
We REINSTATE this appeal. In an order dated May 18, 2015, the Court ordered the Honorable Ken Tapscott, Presiding Judge of the County Court at Law No. 4 , to conduct a hearing and make findings regarding mis sing exhibits. On June 12, 2015, the Court received the trial court’s findings . The trial court found the exhibits have been lost without appellant’s fault and the lost exhibits are necessary to the appeal’s resolution. Judge Tapscott requests additiona l time so that he can conduct a further hearing regarding whether the missing exhibits can be replaced by agreement or, if not, whether they can be replaced with a copy determined by the trial court to accurately duplicate with reasonable certainty the ori ginal exhibits. We GRANT the Judge Tapscott’ s request for additional time.We ORDER Judge Tapscott to conduct a hearing, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order and make findings as to whether : 1. the lost or destroyed exhibits can be repla ced by a greement of the parties; and
2. if the lost or destroyed exhibits cannot be replaced by agreement of the parties, they can be replaced with a copy determined by the trial court to accurately duplicate with reasonable certainty the original exhibits.
We ORDER John Warren, Dallas County Clerk, to file, WITHIN FORTY
- FIVE
DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s finding s of fact from the hearing.
We ORDER Coral Hough, to file, WITHIN FORTY
- FIVE DAYS of the d ate of this order, the reporter’s record from the hearing.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic transmission to Judge Tapscott, John Warren, Coral Hough, and counsel for all parties.
We ABATE this appeal to allow the trial court to conduct the hearing. The appeal will be reinstated in forty

- five days or when the Court receives the requested supplemental clerk’s record, whichever occurs sooner.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 64658)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Genotypic and Phenotypic Heterogeneity in Dyslexia.                    

*Date:*                         December 4, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Marita R. Hopmann, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Building, Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6911,                         *hopmannm@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 7, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-5667 Filed 11-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

THEODORE CHAIRES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv140-RH/WCS

STATE OF FLORIDA, and 

OFFICER A. FURNEY,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s second report and

recommendation, ECF No. 15, and the objections, ECF No. 16. I have reviewed

de novo the issues raised by the objections. 

The objections assert, in effect, that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

(1994), was wrongly decided, or that applying its doctrine in this case would be

unjust. But Heck is the law of the land and squarely applies here. The plaintiff

may challenge his underlying convictions only in an appropriate manner—by a

petition for writ of habeas corpus or analogous motion—not in a federal civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly,

Case 4:11-cv-00140-RH-WCS Document 17 Filed 08/11/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The second report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as

the court’s opinion. 

2. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “The complaint is dismissed under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).” 

3. The amend motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 12, is

DENIED AS MOOT. 

4. The first report and recommendation, ECF No. 10, is VACATED AS

MOOT. 

5. The clerk must close the file.

SO ORDERED on August 10, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge 

Case No: 4:11cv140-RH/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00140-RH-WCS Document 17 Filed 08/11/11 Page 2 of 2
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 551 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to permit insurers 

to offer catastrophic coverage plans to anyone, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2017 

Mr. FORTENBERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to permit insurers to offer catastrophic coverage plans 

to anyone, 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 ‘‘Care for All Act of 

5 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMITTING INSURERS TO OFFER CATASTROPHIC 

7 COVERAGE PLANS TO ANYONE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1302(e) of the Patient 

9 Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18022(e)) 

10 is amended to read as follows: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 551 IH

1 ‘‘(e) CATASTROPHIC PLAN.—A health plan not pro2 viding a bronze, silver, gold, or platinum level of coverage 

3 shall be treated as meeting the requirements of subsection 

4 (d) with respect to any plan year if the plan provides— 

5 ‘‘(1) except as provided in paragraph (2), the 

6 essential health benefits determined under sub7 section (b), except that the plan provides no benefits 

8 for any plan year until the individual has incurred 

9 cost-sharing expenses in an amount equal to the an10 nual limitation in effect under subsection (c)(1) for 

11 the plan year (except as provided for in section 

12 2713); and 

13 ‘‘(2) coverage for at least three primary care 

14 visits.’’. 

15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

16 1312(d)(3)(C) of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

17 Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18032(d)(3)(C)) is amended by strik18 ing ‘‘, except that’’ and all that follows through ‘‘section 

19 1302(e)’’. 

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

21 this section shall apply to coverage issued on or after the 

22 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
[No. 1856]

#### Ex Parte WOODBURN

1. Constitutional Law — Encroachment on Judiciary.

The act of March 13, 1909 (Stats. 1909, p. 98, c. 96), providing for greater credits to prisoners for good behavior than were authorized by prior acts, is void so far as it attempts to commute any part of a sentence imposed prior to its passage, because it interferes with the functions of the judiciary.

2. Couets — Rules of Decision.

Courts are only justified in overruling former decisions where the same are deemed to be clearly erroneous.

APPLICATION ■ by W. Woodburn, in behalf of Edward Hall, for a writ of *habeas corpus*for the discharge of Edward Hall from imprisonment.

Denied.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

*William Woodburn,*for Petitioner.

*R. 0.*Stoddard, Attorney-General, and *L. B.*Fowler, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

By the Court,

NoRCRoss, C. J.:

The said Edward Hall, upon whose behalf the petition was filed, is held in confinement in the state prison under a commitment, issued on the 4th day of May, 1907, ordering him to be imprisoned for the term of three years. He claims that he is entitled to be discharged from confinement under the provisions of an act of the legislature entitled "An act to provide for the government of the state prison of the State of Nevada and repealing other acts, so far as they conflict with the provisions of this act? approved March 13, 1909 (Stats. 1909, p. 98, c. 96).

It is conceded that by reason of the good conduct of the said Hall he is entitled to be discharged, providing the said act of 1909 is applicable to his case. By the provisions of the last-mentioned act a prisoner serving a three-year sentence is entitled to eight months’ credits for good behavior, while under the act in force at the time the prisoner was committed he would only be entitled to seven months’ credits. The precise question here involved came before this court in the case of *Ex Parte*Darling, 16 Nev. 98, 40 Am. Rep. 495. In that case *137it was held that the legislature was without power to pass an act which, in effect, would commute any portion of the sentence imposed by the court prior to the time the act took effect, for the reason that the same interfered with the functions of the judiciary, and hence was violative of the constitution.

To hold with petitioner’s contention in this case, we would be compelled to overrule the decision of this court by Hawley, J., in the Darling case, *supra.*Courts are only justified in overruling former decisions where the samé are déemed to be clearly erroneous. Our attention has not been called to the decision of any court taking a contrary view to that heretofore expressed by this court in the Darling case, and we see no sufficient reason for reversing the former decision of this court upon the question here involved.

The prayer of the petitioner is denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs. Case No. 3:10cr47/LAC

ERIC NICHOLAS LANE

_____________________________________________________________________

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, to which

there have been no timely objections, and subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the plea of guilty of the Defendant, ERIC NICHOLAS LANE, to

Counts I and II of the Superseding Indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear

before this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 9 day of July, 2010. th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Open Joint Stock Company
Vimpel-Communications (the Company), does hereby certify to such officers knowledge that:

The Annual Report
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 16, 2008



|       |  |                          
|------ |  | -------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Alexander V. Izosimov
|Name:  |  | Alexander V. Izosimov    
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer  

Date: May 16, 2008



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Elena A. Shmatova  
|Name:  |  | Elena A. Shmatova      
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                             787
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,578
<ALLOWANCES>                                       555
<INVENTORY>                                    115,616
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,738
<PP&E>                                          17,235
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 148,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,142
<BONDS>                                          7,667
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            84
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   148,093
<SALES>                                        223,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               223,557
<CGS>                                          180,839
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  180,839
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,655
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,817
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,069
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,228
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,841
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,841
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        


</TABLE>