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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5493 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5493

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from income 
                   discharge of medical indebtedness.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 2018

 Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself and Mr. Larson of Connecticut) 
 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 income 
                   discharge of medical indebtedness.

    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 ``Medical Debt Tax Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF DISCHARGE OF MEDICAL INDEBTEDNESS.

    (a) In General.--Section 108 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or'' in 
        subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end of 
        subparagraph (E) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the 
        end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(F) the indebtedness discharged is qualified 
                medical indebtedness.'', and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(j) Qualified Medical Indebtedness.--
            ``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
        `qualified medical indebtedness' means indebtedness which was 
        incurred by an individual for--
                    ``(A) diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or 
                prevention of disease of the taxpayer or the spouse or 
                a dependent of the taxpayer, or for the purpose of 
                affecting any structure or function of the body of the 
                taxpayer or the spouse or a dependent of the taxpayer,
                    ``(B) for transportation primarily for and 
                essential to medical care referred to in subparagraph 
                (A), or
                    ``(C) for qualified long-term care services for the 
                taxpayer or the spouse or a dependent of the taxpayer.
            ``(2) Additional rules.--Rules similar to the rules of 
        paragraphs (2), (5), (8), (9), and (11) of section 213(d) shall 
        apply for purposes of this subsection.
            ``(3) Terms used in section 213.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, any term also used in section 213(d)(1) shall have 
        the same meaning as when used in such section.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to indebtedness discharged after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 2354]

#### ZOE CLARK, Appellant, *v.*C. C. TURNER and HANS KRAUSPE, Respondents.

[180 Pac. 908]

]. Appeal and Error — Time oe Taking — Dismissal.

Where appellant failed to file and serve her notice of appeal within six months after rendition of judgment, as required by Stats. 1913, c. 91 (Rev. Laws, 5329), a motion for dismissal of the appeal must be sustained.

Appeal from Eighth Judicial District Court, Lyon County; *T. C. Hart,*Judge.

Action by Zoe Clark against C. C. Turner and Hans Krauspe. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

*J. M. Frame,*for Appellant.

*Waggoner & Guild,*for Respondents.

By the Court,

Sanders, J.:

This is an appeal from a judgment alone. The respondents move to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground that the appeal was not taken within six months after the rendition of the judgment. Stats. 1913, p. 113; Rev. Laws, 5329.

The record shows that the judgment was rendered on November 27, 1916; that a notice of appeal, dated May 27, 1917, was filed on June 8, 1917; that another notice of appeal from the same judgment was filed and served on January 9, 1918.

The appellant having failed to file and serve her notice of appeal within the time required by law, the motion is sustained. Lambert v. Moore, 1 Nev. 344; Peran v. Monroe, 1 Nev. 484; Lyon Co. v. Washoe Co., 8 Nev. 177; Johnson v. Badger M. & M. Co., 12 Nev. 262; Central T. Co. v. Holmes Co., 30 Nev. 437, 97 Pac. 390; Ward v. Silver Peak, 37 Nev. 470, 143 Pac. 119; Nelson v. Smith, 42 Nev. 302, 176 Pac. 261.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 02, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 02, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20I0175. RUSSELL OLIN LAYTON v. THE STATE .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2018CR001231
# C_2011177EN.01000301.xml

| 17.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 177/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 177/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 June 2011

2011/C 177/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4088 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,63 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4588 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87530 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2034 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1958 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8785 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,286 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 269,20 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7090 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9841 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2405 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2858 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3424 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3929 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,9878 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7652 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7514 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 535,27 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7166 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,1211 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4108 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 126,46 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2997 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,608 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,7955 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,152 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2706 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9021 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 63,2620 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4088

JPY

Japanese yen

113,63

DKK

Danish krone

7,4588

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87530

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2034

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1958

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8785

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,286

HUF

Hungarian forint

269,20

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7090

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9841

RON

Romanian leu

4,2405

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2858

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3424

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3929

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,9878

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7652

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7514

KRW

South Korean won

1 535,27

ZAR

South African rand

9,7166

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,1211

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4108

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 126,46

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2997

PHP

Philippine peso

61,608

RUB

Russian rouble

39,7955

THB

Thai baht

43,152

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2706

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9021

INR

Indian rupee

63,2620

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2011223EN.01000102.xml

| 29.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6123 — ArcelorMittal Bremen/Kokerei Prosper/Arsol Aromatics)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 223/02

On 27 May 2011, 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:

| — | 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 32011M6123. 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 32011M6123. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Comments on 42CFR82: Page 1 of 1

Miller, Diane M.

From: Carter_K_Kirk

Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 7:13 PM

To: NIOCINDOCKET@CDC.GOV

Ce: Francis_M_Roddy@ri.gov; Linda_K_Jarnagin@rl.gov

Subject: Comments on 42CFR82.doc
Importance: High

Comments on 42CFR82:

While 42CFR82 refers to ICRP 60 (42CFR82.10) and the table in that part provides radiation
weighting factors from ICRP 60, the actual calculation to determine whether a person gets paid is not
based on ICRP or NCRP reports but on a paper prepared by a private contractor for NIOSH. This
paper uses different, much higher weighting factors. The paper also prescribes different distribution
functions (lognormal, triangular, discrete) for different radiation types and energies. The paper and
the computer program that uses the information developed in the paper have not been peer reviewed,
nor approved by a scientific consensus body. The existing radiation protection regulations
10CFR835 and 10CFR20 are based on reports by scientific consensus bodies. Since the NIOSH
paper and computer program undercut the radiation protection regulations 10CFR835 and 10CFR20
by establishing new, sub-rosa radiation protection standards in direct conflict with these other rules, a
thorough peer review and formal approval by a consensus scientific body such as the NCRP is
mandatory before 42CFR82 or 42CFR81 are finalized. The comment period must be extended to a
reasonable period after this high level scientific consensus and approval has occurred.

Reconstructing doses with new factors and methods not in use at the time that the dose was received
is counterproductive in that the new numbers will be different and most certainly higher due to the
choice of a 99% confidence interval, higher weighting factors, and different distribution functions.
These differences will cast doubt on the adequacy of the existing radiation protection regulations and
will directly contradict the existing legal record of personnel dosimetry.

The numerous other assumptions to be used in the process of reconstructing doses are not available
for review since the dose reconstruction manual is not available. Since these assumptions are crucial
for use of the regulation, they must be available in order to provide substantive comments on the
tule. The comment period must be extended to a reasonable period after the dose reconstruction
manual is available for review.

In summary, a thorough scientific review and approval by a consensus scientific body is absolutely
necessary before 42CFR82 and 81 can be finalized. To permit payout without this high level of
scientific approval would set an unacceptable precedent contradicting existing regulations and legal
dose records of personnel.

11/6/2001
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 Quarterly Report of Laufer Bridge Enterprises, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Reid Stone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.  /s/ Reid Stone Reid Stone Title: Chief Financial Officer   August 19, 2009
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.17


 





 



April 16, 2014


 


CONFIDENTIAL


 


Richard J. Sullivan


Chief Executive Officer


Global Digital Solutions Inc.


777 South Flagler Drive


Suite 800 West


West Palm Beach, FL 33401


 


Dear Dick:


 


This addendum (the "Addendum") hereby supplements and amends the Agreement dated October 16, 2013 between Midtown Partners & Co., LLC ("Midtown") and Global Digital Solutions Inc. and/or its affiliated entities (collectively, the "Company"). Except as expressly supplemented and/or amended hereby, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their respective terms. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


Termination and Survival


 


5. Termination and Survival. This Agreement shall terminate on October 16, 2014, subject to the extension thereafter as may be agreed in writing by the parties (as may be extended, the "Term"); provided, this Agreement may be terminated prior to expiration of the Term, by either party to this Agreement for any reason at any time upon thirty (30) days prior written notice. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is understood that the provisions of paragraphs 2 (to the extent fees are payable prior to termination), Paragraph 2(c) (to the extent fees are payable after termination), 3 (to the extent expenses have been incurred prior to termination), 4 (the second, third and fourth sentences only), and sections 6 through 18 of this Agreement shall remain operative and in full force and effect regardless of any termination or expiration of this Agreement.


 


In the event of termination, the Placement Agent shall be immediately paid in full on all items of compensation and expenses payable to the Placement Agent pursuant hereto, as of the date of termination.


 




  





  











  






 


If the foregoing correctly sets forth our understanding, please sign the enclosed copy of this Agreement in the space provided and return it to us.


 



	  	
Very truly yours,


 


	  	
Midtown Parteners & Co., LLC


	  	  	  
	  	
By:

	
/s/ John Clarke


	  	  	
John Clarke


	  	  	
Chief Executive Officer







 



	
Accepted and agreed to as of the first day written above

	 
	  	  	 
	
COMPANY:

	 
	 	 	 
	

By:

	
/s/ Richard J. Sullivan

	 
	  	
Richard J. Sullivan


Chief Executive Officer
* 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. 99-20953

 

GDQ CORPORATION, An Arkansas Corporation

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

SANFORD P. BRASS, An Individual

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CV-1936

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

August 11, 2000

Before KING, Chief Judge, and REYNALDO G. GARZA and PARKER,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Citing Bianca v. Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical Div. of WarnerLambert Co., 723 F.3d 392, 397 (5th Cir. 1984), the district

court correctly held that the inquiry under 28 U.S.C. § 1359 is

guided by the “motive/function” rule, and the effort of

defendant-appellant Sanford P. Brass to persuade us that a

different rule does or should obtain for assignments fails for

the reasons adduced by plaintiff-appellee GDQ Corporation in its

appellate brief. The findings of fact of the district court on

the question whether the assignment at issue here was improperly
No. 99-20953

-2-

or collusively made to invoke federal jurisdiction are not

clearly erroneous. The district court also correctly held that

the assignment was valid under Oklahoma law. Brass’s contention

that the assignment was champertous, which was made to the

district court for the first time in his motion for

reconsideration was waived. Even if it had not been waived, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brass’s

motion for reconsideration on this ground as GDQ had a sufficient

interest in the action and no officious intermeddling was

established. Finally, having argued that Oklahoma law controlled

on the statute of limitations issue during the briefing on the

summary judgment motion, Brass was in no position to change

horses on his motion for reconsideration.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control 

 and Prevention (CDC)

 January 15, 2016 

LETTER TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES

Subject: First NIOSH/MSHA Approval for Large-Capacity (Cap 3) 

Closed-Circuit Escape Respirator

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration (MSHA) have approved the first large-capacity (Cap 3) closed-circuit 

escape respirator (CCER) for use in underground coal mining, under new standards published in 

42 C.F.R. Part 84, Subpart O. Approval number TC-13G-0005 was issued to Ocenco, Inc., on 

January 4, 2016 for a Cap 3 CCER, Model EBA 75 CCER for Mining. Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. 

§84.301, manufacturers can continue to manufacture, label, and sell Cap 3 CCERs for mining

approved under the former standard in Subpart H until 1 year after this approval date, or until 

January 4, 2017. 

All types of CCERs approved under Subpart H that were manufactured and labeled as NIOSHapproved and sold by April 9, 2015, as well as those units manufactured and labeled as NIOSHapproved and sold during the extended time periods pursuant to § 84.301, may continue to be 

used as NIOSH-approved respirators until the end of their service life. Please refer to the Table

of Subpart H-approved respirators for a complete list of those respirators and when they can no 

longer be manufactured and labeled as NIOSH-approved. 

Sincerely yours,

David Chirdon 

Chief, Conformity Verification and 

Standards Development Branch

National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory

National Institute for Occupational

Safety and Health (NIOSH)

National Personal Protective

Technology Laboratory (NPPTL)

626 Cochrans Mill Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0070

Phone: 412-386-4000

Fax: 412-386-4051
#### BAXTER v. JONES

No. 113 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 296.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 July 1972.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                   5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                       0001023877
<NAME>                              Goung Hei Investment Co., Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                     1
<CURRENCY>                                              US Dollars

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                         JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                  1
<CASH>                                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 0
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            0
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                        17
<OTHER-SE>                                                     (17)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     0
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 0
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0



</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DONALD OTIS WILLIAMS, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-1199

LT Case No. 2011-CF-105

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Decision filed December 6, 2022

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Lake County, 

Heidi Davis, Judge.

Donald Otis Williams, Raiford, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.