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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3577 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3577

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the tax 
     exemption of the International Olympic Committee and similar 
                             organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 3, 2022

  Mr. Scott of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the tax 
     exemption of the International Olympic Committee and similar 
                             organizations.

    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 ``Irresponsible Olympic Collaboration 
Act'' or as the ``IOC Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF TAX EXEMPTION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC 
              COMMITTEE AND SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(s) Elimination of Tax Exemption for International Olympic 
Committee and Similar Organizations.--If any organization or entity for 
any taxable year--
            ``(1) has the primary purpose of international, multi-
        sport, athletic competitions, and
            ``(2) has gross receipts in excess of $100,000,000 for any 
        of the 3 preceding taxable years,
such organization shall not be treated as described in subsection 
(c)(4) for such taxable year; and no successor of any organization or 
entity which was described in such subsection and ceases to be so 
described by reason of the enactment of this subsection shall be 
treated as described in any paragraph of subsection (c) for any 
subsequent taxable year.''.
    (b) Special Rule for Treaties.--Nothing in section 894 or 7852(d) 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or in any other provision of law 
shall be construed as permitting an exemption, by reason of any treaty 
obligation of the United States heretofore or hereafter entered into, 
from the amendment made by this section.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4018]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,483]


EFR Corporation, Everett, Washington; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By an application dated January 9, 1995, a former company official 
requested administrative reconsideration of the subject petition for 
trade adjustment assistance, TAA. The denial notice was issued on 
December 22, 1994 and published in the Federal Register on January 20, 
1995 (60 FR 4194).
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    Investigation findings show that the workers produced logs.
    In 1994 EFR went into a partnership with Crown Pacific to clear a 
parcel of land. EFR owned the timber once the logs were cut. EFR sold 
the logs to one customer. The partnership was dissolved in November 
1994.
    The Department's denial was based on the fact that the 
``contributed importantly'' test of the worker group eligibility 
requirements of the Trade Act was not met. The ``contributed 
importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the 
subject firm's major declining customers. The Department's survey found 
that the respondents did not import logs or limber in the period 
relevant to the petition.
    Further, foreign competition, in itself, would not form a basis for 
a worker group certification. The worker group requirements necessary 
for certification are (1) a significant decrease in employment; (2) an 
absolute decline in sales or production and (3) increased imports of 
articles that are like or directly competitive with those produced by 
the subject firm and which contributed importantly to declines in sales 
or production and employment. The ``contributed importantly'' test in 
this case was not met.
    The workers were denied under a NAFTA petition, (NAFTA 274).

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 10th day of February 1995.


Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95-4018 Filed 2-16-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### STATE v. DEL ADAMS.

(Filed 14 December, 1955.)

Homicide § 27i—

In tbis prosecution for murder, tbe charge in regard to the jury’s right to recommend life imprisonment *held*erroneous on authority of *8. v. Garter, ante,*106.

Appeal by defendant from *Williams, J.,*and a jury, at August Term, 1955, of JOHNSTON.

Criminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment charging the defendant with the murder of one Raymond Hayes.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, without recommendation of life imprisonment, and judgment was pronounced imposing sentence of death by asphyxiation, from which the defendant appeals.

*291
      *Attorney-General Rodman and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.*

*E. J. Wellons and Grover A. Martin for defendant, appellant.*

Per Cueiam.

Precisely the same error was made in the trial of this case as was made in *S. v. Carter, ante,*106: the trial court did not instruct the jury what the legal effect of a recommendation of life imprisonment would be, as required by statute, G.S. 14-17. For the reasons given in *S. v. Carter,*a new trial is necessary. It is so ordered.

New trial.
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E2.15: Apply OASDI 12.4 percent payroll tax rate on earnings above $300,000 starting in 2025, and tax all earnings once the current-law taxable maximum exceeds $300,000. Provide benefit credit for earnings above the current-law taxable maximum that are subject to the payroll tax, using a secondary PIA formula. This secondary PIA formula involves: (1) an "AIME+" derived from annual earnings from each year after 2024 that were in excess of that year's current-law taxable maximum; and (2) a formula factor of 3 percent on this newly computed "AIME+".**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3


                           CERTIFICATE OF DEFEASANCE

To:  MGM GRAND HOTEL FINANCE CORP.
     MGM GRAND, INC.
     BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION

Re:  Indenture dated as of May 1, 1992 (as supplemental, amended or otherwise
     modified from time to time prior to the date hereof, the "Indenture") by
                                                               ---------
     and among MGM Grand, Inc., a Delaware corporation, MGM Grand Hotel Finance
     Corp., a Nevada corporation, MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., a Nevada corporation,
     and U.S. Trust Company of California, N.A., as Trustee.

     U.S. Trust Company of California, N.A. is acting as trustee (the "Trustee")
                                                                       -------
under and pursuant to the Indenture, under which MGM Finance has issued
$220,000,000 principal amount of its 11-3/4% First Mortgage Notes due 1999 and
$253,000,000 principal amount of its 12% First Mortgage Notes due 2002
(collectively, the "First Mortgage Notes"). Capitalized terms appearing herein
                    --------------------
have the meanings specified in the Indenture.

     The Trustee hereby confirms that the provisions of Article 8 of the
Indenture providing for the defeasance of the First Mortgage Notes have been met
as specified therein.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Trustee, by its duly authorized officer, has
hereunto set its hand as of this 29th day of October, 1996.


                            U.S. Trust Company of California, N.A., as Trustee


                            By: /s/ D. Young
                               --------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 32.2

       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 NASB Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Rhonda Nyhus, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.


May 8, 2009                 By:  /s/ Rhonda Nyhus
                                 Rhonda Nyhus
                                 Vice President and Treasurer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to NASB Financial, Inc. and will be retained by NASB
Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.



This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for
any other purpose.

<Page>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 248 (Wednesday, December 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66959-66960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31269]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Cancellation of Designation for the South Texas Region (TX)

AGENCY: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
(GIPSA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Quanta Lab (Quanta) was scheduled to begin providing official 
inspection services January 1, 1996; however, Quanta has asked that 
this designation be canceled.

DATES: Effective Date January 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Janet M. Hart, Chief, Review Branch, Compliance Division, 
GIPSA, USDA, Room 1647 South Building, P.O. Box 96454, Washington, DC 
20090-6454.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet M. Hart, telephone 202-720-8525.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or 
regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental 
Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental 
Regulation do not apply to this action.
    Section 7(f)(1) of the United States Grain Standards Act, as 
amended (Act) authorizes the GIPSA Administrator to designate a 
qualified applicant to 

[[Page 66960]]
provide official services in a specified area after determining that 
the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such 
official services.
    GIPSA designated Quanta, main office located in Selma, Texas, to 
provide official services, under the Act on November 7, 1995, to be 
effective on January 1, 1996. The designation of Quanta was scheduled 
to end on December 30, 1996. However, Quanta asked GIPSA to cancel its 
designation effective January 1, 1996, due to concerns regarding the 
demand for service in the area. Accordingly, GIPSA is announcing the 
cancellation of Quanta s designation effective January 1, 1996.
    Official services in South Texas will continue to be provided by 
the GIPSA Corpus Christi office, which can be contacted at 512-888-
3461.

    Authority: Pub. L. 94-582, 90 Stat. 2867, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 
71 et seq.)

    Dated: December 18, 1995
Neil E. Porter
Director, Compliance Division
[FR Doc. 95-31269 Filed 12-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-EN-F
#### KATHERINE C. TIEDEMANN v. HERBERT A. TIEDEMANN.

(Filed 24 May, 1933.)

1. Appeal and Error J c—

An order supported by sufficient findings of fact based on the evidence will be sustained.

2. Divorce E b: Appeal and Error J b—

The amounts allowed for reasonable subsistence and counsel fees upon application for alimony *pendente Ute*are determined by the trial court in his discretion and are not reviewable, although either party may apply for a modification before trial. O. S., 1667.

Appeal by defendant from *Clement, J.,*at November Term, 1932, of Buncombe.

Affirmed.

This is an action for alimony without divorce. C. S., 1667.

*683Pending the trial and final determination of tbe issues involved in the action, on the application of the plaintiff, and after notice to the defendant, an order was made by the judge holding the Superior Courts of Euncombe County, that the defendant pay into the office of the clerk of the court, each month, *pendente lite,*the sum of $150.00, for the use of the plaintiff, and forthwith the sum of $1,200, on account of fees for her counsel in this action.

From this order, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Garter & Carter and J ames 8. Sowell for plaintiff.*

*George M. Pritchard for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

The facts found by the judge are set out in his order. These facts are sufficient to support the order. There was evidence at the hearing tending to sustain the findings of fact. The amounts which the defendant is required to pay for the reasonable subsistence of plaintiff, *pendente lite,*and for compensation to her counsel were determined by the judge in the exercise of his sound discretion. They are not subject to review by this Court. *Anderson v. Anderson,*183 N. C., 139, 110 S. E., 863. They may be modified at any time before the trial of the action upon the application of either party. C. S., 1667. The order is

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 17, 2022. 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, June 17, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0403. IN THE INTEREST OF L. T. et al., CHILDREN (MOTHER) .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 21J00392 21J00390 21J00391
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1301

In re: JAMES LESTER ROUDABUSH, JR., 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(No. 1:13-cr-00195-CMH-1)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

James Lester Roudabush, Jr., petitions for a writ of 

mandamus, seeking an order from this court directing the 

district court to provide him with papers he believes he needs 

to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) or to appoint 

counsel to represent him.* We conclude that Roudabush is not 

entitled to mandamus relief. 

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 

509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is 

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the 

relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 

135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a 

substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 

351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

The relief sought by Roudabush is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 

* In the petition, Roudabush also states that the district 

court has not ruled on his February 2015 motion seeking a copy 

of the trial transcript and presentence report or, in the 

alternative, appointment of counsel. To the extent Roudabush 

seeks an order from this court directing the district court to 

act on his motion, we find that the present record does not 

reveal undue delay in the district court. 

2

 
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED

3
#### CLARA A. SALTER v. EDMUND GORDON.

(Filed 18 February, 1931.)

Negligence A c — Where landlord is not under duty to repair premises, sublessee may not recover from him for injury resulting from failure to repair.

For damages against a landlord caused by a negligent condition of the premises a sublessee can have no greater claim against the landlord than his lessor, and in the absence of evidence that the landlord was under obligation to keep the premises in repair a judgment as of nonsuit is properly entered.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Harris, J.,*at September Term, 1930, of CuRRitucK.

Affirmed.

*382
      *George J. Spence for. plaintiff.*

*G. B. Morris and M. B. Simpson for defendant.*

Pee Cukiam.

Tbe defendant owned a building in Norfolk, Virginia, wbieb bad been rented by tbe plaintiff’s busband as sublessee. On tbe second story there was a balcony from wbieb tbe plaintiff fell to tbe pavement, sustaining personal injury. Sbe brought suit for damages, alleging that her fall was due to tbe negligence of the defendant in failing to keep the railing on tbe balcony in a reasonably safe condition. At tbe close of tbe plaintiff’s evidence tbe action was dismissed as in case of nonsuit.' Tbe plaintiff excepted and appealed.

A sublessee can have no greater claim against tbe landlord than tbe tenant would have under like circumstances. *Jordan v. Miller,*179 N. C., 73. In tbe absence of an agreement as to repairs tbe landlord is not obligated to beep tbe building in repair for tbe benefit of bis tenant. *Improvement Co. v. Coley-Bardin,*156 N. C., 255; *Fields v. Ogburn,*178 N. C., 407; *Tucker v. Yarn Mill Co.,*194 N. C., 756. Tbe record contains no evidence of tbe landlord’s agreement to make repairs. Judgment

Affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 2461

SIMEON MCCRAE MERRITT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
ABACUS STAFFING , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:19

- cv
- 00488

- AWA

- RJK )

Submitted : February 18, 2020 Decided: February 20, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS , and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Simeon Mccrae Merritt , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Simeon Mccrae Merritt appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his complaint for failure to state a cla im pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2018). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Merritt v. Abacus Staffing , No. 2:19

- cv
- 00488

- AWA

RJK (E.D. Va. Nov. 25, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-99196, 33-94974, 333-65799, 333-36159, 333-82418, 333-82416, 333-140539, 333-158287 and 333-169438) and the Registration statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-143421, 333-161315, 333-165356 and 333-169434) of Acorn Energy, Inc. of our reports dated March 16, 2011, relating to the financial statements, which appear in this Form 10-K.
 
 
 
 /s/ Friedman LLP
 
 March 16, 2011
 East Hanover, New Jersey
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 28, 2024

. N ot f inal unti l dispositi on o f timel y f iled mot ion f or rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23-1178 Lower Tribunal No. 18 -705 A-K

________________ 

### Pavel Martinez-Ruiz, Appellant,
vs. 

### The Stat e of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Fl orida R ule o f Appellat e Proce dure 9.14 1(b)(2) from t he Circui t Cour t f or M onroe County , M ark H

. Jone s, Judge. Pavel Martinez
- Ruiz , in proper person. Ash ley Moody , Attorney General, and Kayla H. McNab, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY , and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Because Appellant failed to fil e a motion to withdraw his plea in the trial court , this Court is wi thout jurisdiction to hear the instant appeal. See State v. Dor ch , 317 So. 3d 1074 , 1084 (Fla. 2021) (“ We hold that there is no fundamental
- error exception to the preservation requirement of rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c). ”); Hicks v. State , 915 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim that plea was not voluntary and intelligent where the defendant failed to file a motion to withdraw the plea in trial court). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice so that Appellant can properly seek to withdraw his plea in the trial court

. Dismissed without prejudice

.