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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3265 

To require the National Nuclear Security Administration to release all of 

its reversionary rights to the building located at 4170 Allium Court, 

Springfield, Ohio. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2021 

Mr. PORTMAN (for himself and Mr. BROWN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the National Nuclear Security Administration to 

release all of its reversionary rights to the building located at 4170 Allium Court, Springfield, Ohio. 

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 ‘‘Providing Opportuni5 ties for Wider Economic Revitalization Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘POWER Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3265 IS

1 SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF BUILDING LOCATED AT 4170 ALLIUM 

2 COURT, SPRINGFIELD, OHIO. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The National Nuclear Security 

4 Administration shall release all of its reversionary rights 

5 without reimbursement to the building located at 4170 

6 Allium Court, Springfield, Ohio, also known as the Ad7 vanced Technical Intelligence Center for Human Capital 

8 Development, to the Community Improvement Corpora9 tion of Clark County and the Chamber of Commerce. 

10 (b) FEE SIMPLE INTEREST.—The fee simple interest 

11 in the property, on which the building described in sub12 section (a) is located, shall be transferred from the Ad13 vanced Technical Intelligence Center for Human Capital 

14 Development to the Community Improvement Corporation 

15 of Clark County prior to or concurrent with the release 

16 of the reversionary rights of the National Nuclear Security 

17 Administration under subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### BARBARA P. HOUSE v. THE STATE HOSPITAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, INC.

(Filed 16 March, 1960.)

Appeal and Error § 3: Trial § 49—

Where the court sets aside the verdict in the exereise of its discretion there is no judgment from which an appeal can lie, and appellant may not present the correctness of the court’s ruling on its motion to nonsuit by challenging the exercise of the court’s discretion in setting aside the verdict.

Appeal by defendant from *Bone, J.,*November 1959 Term, of Edgeoombe.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover payments alleged to be owing under a retirement contract with defendant. Defendant denied liability, asserting the alleged contract was without consideration, was *ultra vires*and void.

At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence defendant moved for non-suit. Its motion was denied. It offered no evidence. The court submitted; issues arising on the pleadings. The jury answered the issues in accord with defendant’s contention. Defendant tendered a judgment based on the verdict. The court refused to sign the judgment tendered and in the exercise of its discretion set the verdict aside and ordered another trial. Defendant excepted to the order setting the verdict aside and appealed.

*190*John Hill Paylor, Fountain, Fountain, Bridgets & Horton for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Owens & Langley, Herbert H. Taylor, Jr., and Z. Creighton Brin-son for defendant, appellant.*

PER CuRiam.

Defendant argues the court erred in setting the verdict aside because, as it contends, there was no evidence on which the jury could have returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff. In this manner it seeks to review the court’s ruling in overruling the motion to nonsuit. No judgment has been rendered against defendant. It may not, by challenging the exercise of the court’s discretion in setting the verdict aside, present for determination the correctness of the court’s ruling on the motion to nonsuit. *White v. Keller,*242 N.C. 97, 86 S.E. 2d 795; *Byrd v. Hampton,*243 N.C. 627, 91 S.E. 2d 671.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.01

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-124738 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-129654 on Form S-4, and
Registration Statement Nos. 333-118239, 333-56979, 333-07391, 333-18563,
333-28789, 333-109885, 333-68052, and 333-127050 on Form S-8 of our reports
dated February 17, 2006, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Fisher Scientific International Inc. and management's
report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fisher Scientific International
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

New York, New York
February 17, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31591]








Commodity Futures Trading Commission

TIME AND DATE: 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 1996.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Rule Enforcement review.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Lynn K. Gilbert,

Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95-31591 Filed 12-29-95; 2:11 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Ann

Balan

75th 

-1.92% -5.70% 0.28% 0.43% -1.64% -5.2

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2005 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actu

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Increase the number of years used to calculate benefits for retirees and not for disabled workers) from 35 to 38, phased in 2006-2010

January 4, 2006

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this prov

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.00

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI tax rate schedule 

(employees and employers, each)

1993 and later 6.2%

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditu

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 205

Year

Percent

Present law with thi
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3619 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3619

  For the relief of Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 9, 2022

Ms. Hirono (for herself and Mr. Schatz) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  For the relief of Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree).

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS FOR VICHAI SAE TUNG.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
seq.), Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree) shall be held 
and considered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States for 
permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon 
payment of the required visa fees.
    (b) Reduction of Number of Available Visas.--Upon the granting of 
permanent residence to Vichai Sae Tung (also known as Chai Chaowasaree) 
pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary of State shall instruct the 
proper officer to reduce by one, during the current or subsequent 
fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas available to natives 
of the country of the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                 <all>
```
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Retirement Age

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						C1.6: Starting with those age 62 in 2024, increase the normal retirement age (NRA) 1 month every 2 years until the NRA reaches 69. Also increase the age up to which the delayed retirement credit may be earned at the same rate (from 70 to 72). No change to earliest eligibility age.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
#### STATE v. M. N. MOSELEY, CAPITAL AMUSEMENT COMPANY and H. E. LAING.

(Filed 20 November, 1940.)

Appeal by defendant H. E. Laing from *Parker, J.,*at September Criminal Term, 1940, of Wake.

Affirmed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.*

*Aaron Goldberg and W. Brantley Womble for defendant.*

*482Clarkson, J.

This case is governed by the opinion of *S. v. Abbott, ante,*470.

For the reasons given in that opinion, the judgment of the court below in this case is

Affirmed.
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Ann

Balan

75th 

-1.92% -5.70% 0.46% 0.73% -1.46% -4.9

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2005 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actu

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Increase the number of years used to calculate benefits for retirees and not for disabled workers) from 35 to 40, phased in 2006-2014

January 4, 2006

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this prov

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.00

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI tax rate schedule 

(employees and employers, each)

1993 and later 6.2%

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditu

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 205

Year

Percent

Present law with thi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

EARL LOUIS HOLLINS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 251 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-11184 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROSENDO NAVA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CR-306-ALL-G

-------------------- June 14, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rosendo Nava has moved to withdraw and filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although he was informed of counsel’s motion, Nava has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Level of Monthly Benefits

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						B7.5: Increase benefits by 5 percent for all beneficiaries as of the beginning of 2024 and for those newly eligible for benefits after the beginning of 2024.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3842 

_____________________________

LAPORSHIA PATTERSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Joshua M. Hawkes, Judge.

March 26, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, M.K. THOMAS, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

LaPorshia Patterson, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E3.14: Eliminate the taxable maximum for the employer payroll tax (6.2 percent) beginning in 2024. For the employee payroll tax (6.2 percent) and for benefit credit purposes, beginning in 2024, increase the taxable maximum by an additional 2 percent per year until taxable earnings equal 90 percent of covered earnings.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136223 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 136223 

 COA: 283512 

Montcalm CC: 07-009015-FC 

LOUIS ALAN LATHROP, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0616 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 23, 2008 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 13.1


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



          In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Vitro, S.A. de
C.V. (the "registrant"), for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), each
of the undersigned officers of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to such officer's knowledge:

          (a) the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

          (b) the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
registrant.



Date: June 30, 2004                            /s/ Federico Sada Gonzalez
                                              ------------------------------
                                               Name:  Federico Sada Gonzalez
                                               Title: President and Chief
                                                      Executive Officer


                                               /s/ Claudio del Valle Cabello
                                              --------------------------------
                                               Name:  Claudio del Valle Cabello
                                               Title: Chief Administrative
                                                      Officer


                                               /s/ Alvaro Rodriguez Arregui
                                              --------------------------------
                                               Name:  Alvaro Rodriguez Arregui
                                               Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Pella Realty, LLC, Appellant, v Commissioner of Finance et al., Respondents.

[774 NYS2d 38]

*279Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola Soto, J.), entered February 13, 2003, which, in an action seeking a declaration that plaintiff is entitled to a real estate tax refund that the city defendants paid to the non-city defendants, inter aha, granted defendants’ cross motions to dismiss the complaint, deemed to be an appeal from the ensuing judgment, same court and Justice, entered June 13, 2003, dismissing the complaint, and so considered, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As against the city defendants, the IAS court properly converted the action to a CPLR article 78 proceeding where plaintiff is challenging the Department of Finance’s determination to deny its application for a tax refund (CPLR 103 [c]; *cf. Butler v Wing,*275 AD2d 273, 276 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 770 [2000]). Accordingly, the applicable statute of limitations is four months, measured from plaintiffs receipt of the Department of Finance’s August 8, 2001 letter advising plaintiff of the denial of its application (CPLR 217), and the action was therefore properly dismissed as untimely. Even were we to consider the subsequent letters dated October 29, 2001 and November 20, 2001 as amenable to CPLR article 78 proceedings, the matter would still be untimely. As against the non-city defendants who received the refund, plaintiffs cause of action for fraud was properly dismissed on the ground that the alleged misrepresentations contained in their application for a tax refund were made not to plaintiff but to the Department of Finance, and thus could not have induced reliance by plaintiff. Nor does plaintiff have a cause of action for conversion against the non-city defendants, where the Department of Finance denied plaintiffs application for a refund not because it had already paid the refund to the non-city defendants, but because the application was made more than six years after plaintiffs predecessor paid the tax (citing 19 RCNY 24-02). As the IAS court stated, it does not appear that the Department of Finance’s payment of the refund to the non-city defendants was a factor in its determination to deny the refund to plaintiff, and plaintiffs present challenge to that determination is barred by the four-month statute of limitations. Thus, plaintiff cannot show legal entitlement to the refund, a necessary element to its cause of action for conversion *(see Republic of Haiti v Duvalier,*211 AD2d 379, 384 [1995]). We have considered plaintiffs other *280contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### STATE v. FOREST M. HOLDER.

(Filed 2 March, 1960.)

1. Criminal Law § 156—

An inadvertence of the court in stating the contentions of defendant must he brought to the court’s attention in time for correction in order to be considered on appeal.

Appeal by defendant from *Nettles, E. J.,*September Term, 1959, Gaston Superior Court.

This criminal prosecution originated in the Municipal Court of the City of Gastonia upon a warrant charging the defendant with the operation of a motor vehicle on the public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. From a conviction and judgment in the Municipal Court, he appealed to the Superior Court of Gaston County. Upon the trial in the superior court the defendant called the Sheriff of Gaston County as a witness. The Sheriff testified he had known the defendant for 10 years — had seen him when he was drunk and when he was sober; that he saw him in jail about 30 minutes after his arrest and it was his opinion that the defendant “was not under the influence.”

*Cjn*cross-examination, he testified without objection: “Later on *122that week Mr. Holder did get drunk and I took him to Dix Hill."

The court, with respect to the defendant’s evidence andi contentions, charged the jury: “He argues and contends . . . Sheriff Beam has testified that he saw the defendant some 30 minutes after he had been apprehended . . . that in his opinion he was not drunk. . . . and that thereafter, in about two days, he took him to the State Hospital at Raleigh for the purpose of having him treated for alcoholism.”

From a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.

*Malcolm B. Seawell Attorney General, Glenn L. Hooper, Jr., Assistant Attorney General for the State.*

*Mullen, Holland & Cooke, by: Frank P. Cooke for defendant, appellant.*

PER Curiam.

The defendant asked for a new trial solely upon the ground that the court committed error in recapitulating the defendant’s evidence and contentions and that he was prejudiced by the reference to the treatment of alcoholism.

Inadvertence in stating the contentions or in recapitulating the evidence must be called to the attention of the court in time for correction. After verdict the objection' comes too late. *State v. Adams,*245 N.C. 344, 95 S.E. 2d 902.

No error.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form S-8 Registration
Statement (file no. 333-11475) and in the Form S-3 Registration Statement (file
no. 333-06809) of our report, dated August 3, 1998, on the financial statements
of Quantech Ltd. (the "Registrant"), which report and statements appear in the
Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A-1 for the year ended June 30, 1998.




                                             /s/    McGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
October 13, 1998
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 0.57% 0.61% -1.44% -3.73%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

August 31, 2009

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

Proposed Provision: Impose a 3 percent payroll tax on OASDI covered earnings above the current 

taxable maximum starting in 2010. Benefit computations would not reflect any earnings above the taxable 

maximum amount.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Present law With this provision
**Exhibit 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT**

**TO SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Intertape Polymer Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory A. Yull, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: March 26, 2013