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

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4757 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand certain exceptions 

to the private activity bond rules for first-time farmers, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 29, 2014 

Mr. LATHAM 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 expand 

certain exceptions to the private activity bond rules for 

first-time farmers, 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. EXPANSION OF CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE 

4 PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND RULES FOR FIRST5 TIME FARMERS. 

6 (a) INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMITATION.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 147(c)(2)(A) of the 

8 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik9 ing ‘‘$450,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$509,600’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4757 IH

1 (2) REPEAL OF SEPARATE LOWER DOLLAR LIM2 ITATION ON USED FARM EQUIPMENT.—Section 

3 147(c)(2) of such Code is amended by striking sub4 paragraph (F) and by redesignating subparagraphs 

5 (G) and (H) as subparagraphs (F) and (G), respec6 tively. 

7 (3) QUALIFIED SMALL ISSUE BOND LIMITATION

8 CONFORMED TO INCREASED DOLLAR LIMITATION.— 

9 Section 144(a)(11)(A) of such Code is amended by 

10 striking ‘‘$250,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$509,600’’. 

11 (4) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.— 

12 (A) IN GENERAL.—Section 147(c)(2)(G) of 

13 such Code, as redesignated by paragraph (2), is 

14 amended— 

15 (i) by striking ‘‘after 2008, the dollar 

16 amount in subparagraph (A) shall be in17 creased’’ and inserting ‘‘after 2014, the 

18 dollar amounts in subparagraph (A) and 

19 section 144(a)(11)(A) shall each be in20 creased’’, and 

21 (ii) by striking ‘‘2007’’ in clause (ii) 

22 and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

23 (B) CROSS REFERENCE.—Section 

24 144(a)(11) of such Code is amended by adding 

25 at the end the following new subparagraph: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4757 IH

1 ‘‘(D) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—For infla2 tion adjustment of dollar amount contained in 

3 subparagraph (A), see section 147(c)(2)(G).’’. 

4 (b) SUBSTANTIAL FARMLAND DETERMINED ON

5 BASIS OF AVERAGE RATHER THAN MEDIAN FARM

6 SIZE.—Section 147(c)(2)(E) of such Code is amended by 

7 striking ‘‘median’’ and inserting ‘‘average’’. 

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

9 this section shall apply to bonds issued after the date of 

10 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Exhibit A 

Supplemental Engagement Letter 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 1

of 13
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 2

of 13
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 3

of 13
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 4

of 13
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 5

of 13
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 6

of 13
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 7

of 13
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 8

of 13
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 9

of 13
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 10

of 13
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 11

of 13
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 12

of 13
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1844-1 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 17:36:36 Page 13

of 13
EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
registration  statement on Form S-8,  dated June 12, 1996,  and Form S-3,  dated
February 12, 1999, of CardioTech International, Inc. of our report dated May 25,
1999, except as to the information  presented in the fourth paragraph of Note I,
for which the date is June 25, 1999,  which included an emphasis of matter going
concern  paragraph,  on our audit of the  consolidated  financial  statements of
CardioTech  International,  Inc. as of March 31,  1999,  and for each of the two
years in the period  ended  March 31,  1999,  which  report is  included  in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.


                                                      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
June 29, 1999
#### ALICE J. ALDEN, Appellant, *v.*GEORGE S. DIOSSY, Respondent.

*Usury*— to *authorize the cancellation of a collateral obligation, not given by the borrower, the money actually loaned must be retwned.*

"Where a wife, in order to secure a loan made to her husband, executes a chattel mortgage upon her separate property, she cannot maintain an action to have the same canceled, on the ground that the loan was usurious, unless prior to the commencement thereof she has tendered to the lender the amount actually loaned, and so alleges in her complaint.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon the trial of this action by the court without a jury.

The action was brought to have a chattel mortgage given by plaintiff to defendant canceled, on the ground that it was given to secure an usurious loan. The loan was made to the plaintiff’s husband.

*Samuel J. Crooks,*for the appellant.

*JOrastus New,*for the respondent.

*312INGALLS, J.:

The judgment should be affirmed. The complaint shows that the loan was made to the husband of the plaintiff, and she executed the mortgage in question for his benefit. She, therefore, became a surety for her husband, and consequently cannot be regarded as the borrower of the money in such sense as to enable her to maintain this action, without showing that previous to the commencement of the action she had tendered to the defendant the money actually loaned, and in her complaint so alleged. Such tender is indisponible to the maintenance of an action in equity by any party, except the actual borrower of the money, to avoid a contract tainted with usury.

A surety must establish an offer to return that which has actually been received, before a court of equity will interpose to relieve the surety. *(Fanning*v. Dunham, 5 Johns. Ch., 122; *Dey*v. *Dunham, 2*id., 182; *Campbell*v. Morrison, 7 Paige Ch., 157; Story’s Eq. Jur., § 301.) “If the borrower comes into a court of equity, seeking relief against the usurious contract, the only terms upon which the court will interfere are that the plaintiff will pay the defendant what is really and *bona fide*due him, deducting the usurious interest; and if the plaintiff do not make such offer in his bill, the defendant may demur to it and the bill will be dismissed.” (Rogers v. *Rathbun,*1 Johns. Ch., 367; *Bissell v. Kellogg,*60 Barb., 631.) The statute of 1837, chapter 430, does not apply to this case, as the plaintiff cannot be regarded a borrower within that statute. *(Wheelock*v. Lee, 64 N. Y., 243; *Marsh*v. *House,*Vol. 6 N. Y. Weekly Dig., 58; *Post*v. *The Bank of*Utica, 7 Hill, 391.) The plaintiff did not ask to amend, or even pretend that any such offer had been made to the defendant.

We perceive no escape from the consequences of such defect in the plaintiff’s case, and conclude that the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Davis, P, J., concurred; Beady, J., talcing no part.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00095-CV

Ellen Jones, Appellant

v.

Paul Wright, Appellee

FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. C2018-2063D, THE HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

The parties have filed a Joint Motion to Set Aside Trial Court’s Final Judgment 

Without Regard to the Merits and Remand Case to Trial Court.

We grant the motion, set aside the trial court’s judgment, and remand this cause to 

the trial court for entry of an agreed order of dismissal with prejudice in accordance with the 

agreement of the parties. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis

Set Aside and Remanded 

Filed: September 28, 2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997     
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997 
<CASH>                                             936
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             868
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     18,224
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             712
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               720
<LOANS>                                         26,980
<ALLOWANCE>                                        282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,981
<DEPOSITS>                                      35,819
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                972
<LONG-TERM>                                        464
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,720
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  49,981
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,166
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,319
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   226
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,711
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,589
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,680
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,031
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       29
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    456
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         327
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       327
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.15
<LOANS-NON>                                        273
<LOANS-PAST>                                       181
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   337
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       95
<RECOVERIES>                                        11
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  282
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               282
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
1

 We construe pro se pleadings liberally. Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan., 318

F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003).

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 24, 2005

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MACK RAY RUCKER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHARLES RAY, Warden; THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 04-6209

(W.D. Oklahoma)

(D.Ct. No. 03-CV-1740-R)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

AND DISMISSING APPEAL

Before KELLY, O’BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mack Ray Rucker Jr., pro se,

1

 appeals the district court's decision denying

him habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from his Oklahoma conviction for
-2-

domestic violence, affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. See

Rucker v. Oklahoma, No. F-2001-1341 (OCCA Dec. 20, 2002) (unpublished). 

On appeal, Rucker argues that 1) there was insufficient evidence to support his

conviction; 2) his attorney provided ineffective representation; and 3) he was

denied a fair trial due to cumulative error.

To pursue this appeal, Rucker must first obtain a certificate of appealability

(COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). To be entitled to a COA, he must make

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(2). To make this showing, he must establish that “reasonable jurists

could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have

been resolved [by the district court] in a different manner or that the issues

presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotations omitted). After

carefully considering Rucker’s arguments and the entire record, we concur with

the well-written and thoughtful report and recommendation of the magistrate

judge, adopted by the district court in its order denying habeas relief. Rucker has

failed to make a sufficient showing that he is entitled to a COA on any of his

claims. Therefore, we DISMISS this appeal.

In addition, Rucker’s pending request to proceed in forma pauperis filed in

this Court is DENIED. He shall remit the full amount of the filing fee within
-3-

twenty (20) days of this order.

Entered by the Court:

Terrence L. O’Brien

United States Circuit Judge
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4859 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to require that the Administrator 

of General Services verify that a building to be leased to accommodate 

a Federal agency is located a certain distance from public transportation 

before entering into the lease agreement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2014 

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to require that 

the Administrator of General Services verify that a building to be leased to accommodate a Federal agency is 

located a certain distance from public transportation before entering into the lease agreement. 

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 ‘‘Government Services 

5 Accessibility Act of 2014’’. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4859 IH

1 SEC. 2. LEASE AGREEMENTS. 

2 Section 585(a) of title 40, United States Code, is 

3 amended by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(3) DISTANCE TO PUBLIC TRANSPOR5 TATION.— 

6 ‘‘(A) DEFINITION OF PUBLIC TRANSPOR7 TATION.—In this paragraph, the term ‘public 

8 transportation’ has the meaning given the term 

9 in section 5302 of title 49. 

10 ‘‘(B) DETERMINATION.—The Adminis11 trator of General Services shall not enter into 

12 a lease agreement under paragraph (1) unless 

13 the Administrator determines that— 

14 ‘‘(i) the building (or improvement) to 

15 be leased would satisfy any requirement 

16 concerning access to public transportation 

17 listed in a proposed short form lease or so18 licitation for offers provided to each pro19 spective offeror in accordance with section 

20 570.203–3 of the Federal Acquisition Reg21 ulation (or successor regulations); and 

22 ‘‘(ii) if the short form lease or solicita23 tion for offers contains a requirement con24 cerning access to public transportation, the 

25 building (or improvement) is located not 

26 greater than a certain distance from public 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4859 IH

1 transportation that operates regularly 

2 throughout the normal business hours of 

3 the building (or improvement).’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WElL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

Stephen Karotkin (pro hac vice) 

(stephen.karotkin@weil.com) 

Ray C. Schrock, P.C. (pro hac vice) 

(ray.schrock@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice) 

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

Matthew Goren (pro hac vice) 

(matthew.gorenweil. corn) 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Tel: 212 310 8000 

Fax: 212 310 8007 

KELLER & BEN VENUTTI LLP 

Tobias S. Keller (#15 1445) 

(tke11er@kel1erbenvenutti.com ) 

Jane Kim (#298192) 

(jkimkel1erbenvenutti.com ) 

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tel: 415 496 6723 

Fax: 650 636 9251 

Attorneys for Debtors 

and Debtors in Possession 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Debtors. 

DAffects PG&E Corporation 

DAffects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

IZiAffects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (dm). 

WEIL:\97014481\2\67615.0014 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2000-7 Filed: 05/14/19 Entered: 05/14/19 17:18:10 Page 1

of 2
I DE,) ISL’I Ml S] 1I waj I &’Dl ZE1lJI ’&O YI 11i 1[II 

I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of 

California that the following is true and correct: 

I am an attorney employed in the State of California, and am a member of the State Bar 

of California. I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen (18) years, and not a 

party to or interested in the within-entitled cause. My business address is Ericksen Arbuthnot, 

100 Howe Avenue, Suite 110 South, Sacramento, CA 95825. 

On April 29, 2019, I caused to be served the following documents: 

 Debtors’Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b) and 9027 Enlarging the 

Time Within Which to File Notices of Removal of Related Proceedings (and 

supporting documents) 

E?I By first class mail (and courtesy copy by email) to the counsel of record to the following 

individuals, at their respective notificwation addresses listed below in the matter of Gatto v. 

County of Tuolumne, Tuolumne County Superior Court Case No. CV 61711 

Attorneys for County of Tuolumne 

Lynn Garcia 

Ryan Ichinaga 

Spinelli Donald Nott 

601 University Avenue, Sute 225 

Sacramento, CA 95825 

RyanI(i)sdn1aw.com 

LynnGsdnlaw.com 

20 

21 Dated: April 29, 2019 

22 

23 

24 GABRIEL ULLRICH (SBN 265080) 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

WEIL:\97014481\2\67615.0014 

I 

1 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2000-7 Filed: 05/14/19 Entered: 05/14/19 17:18:10 Page 2

of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,962
<SECURITIES>                                     9,687
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,276
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,074
<PP&E>                                           3,341
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,187
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           103
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,440
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,191
<SALES>                                         16,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,965
<CGS>                                            6,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,145
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,049
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,131)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,131)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,131)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)


</TABLE>
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2122    Filed: 05/21/19    Entered: 05/21/19 07:30:49    Page 1 of1
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




The undersigned, Kurt H. Jensen, Chief Financial Officer of Applied DNA Sciences, Inc. (the “Company”), in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, hereby certifies pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that




3.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and




4.
the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




This certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of the Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.


/s/  KURT H. JENSENKurt H. Jensen

Chief Financial Officer

May 16, 2011
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1922 Filed: 05/08/19 Entered: 05/08/19 13:24:55 Page 1 of

1
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2488    Filed: 06/12/19    Entered: 06/12/19 06:12:08    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2488    Filed: 06/12/19    Entered: 06/12/19 06:12:08    Page 2 of2