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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5275 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5275

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the taxable REIT 
                         subsidiary asset test.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 25, 2023

  Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. Higgins of New York) 
 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 restore the taxable REIT 
                         subsidiary asset test.

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF TAXABLE REIT SUBSIDIARY ASSET TEST.

    (a) In General.--Section 856(c)(4)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``20 percent'' and inserting ``25 
percent''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.
                                 <all>
```
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Barry Michael Ford, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co., Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Nightingale Law, P.C. (Michael S. Nightingale, Esq.), for appellant.Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Irena Golodkeyer, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Pamela L. Fisher, J.), entered February 4, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for services rendered from October 19, 2009 through February 19, 2010.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, with $30 costs, and the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for services rendered from October 19, 2009 through February 19, 2010 are granted.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for services rendered from October 19, 2009 through February 19, 2010.</p><p>Defendant's motion papers established the proper mailing of the denial of claim forms at issue (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]). Furthermore, defendant made a prima facie showing that the amount plaintiff sought to recover for services rendered from October 19, 2009 through February 19, 2010 was in excess of the amount permitted by the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule. In opposition, plaintiff failed to proffer evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>with respect to defendant's fee schedule defense.</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed and the branches of defendant's motion seeking summary dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover for services rendered from October 19, 2009 through February 19, 2010 are granted.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Mike MARINO and Nina Marino, Petitioners, v. Althea HARTSFIELD, Respondent.

No. D-3678.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 5, 1994.

Rehearing Overruled Feb. 2, 1994.

Ronald A. Bass, Jonette S. Anderson, Houston, for petitioners.

*337James R. Bays, Brian Reade, The Woodlands, for respondent.

On Application for Writ of Error to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas.

PER CURIAM.

The circumstances of this case, which are described in the court of appeals’ opinion, 849 S.W.2d 835, are in all material respects identical to those in *National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Ninth Court of Appeals,*864 S.W.2d 58 (Tex.1993), save in the manner the case comes to us. *National Union*was an original mandamus proceeding, while this case is an appeal by writ of error which requests mandamus relief in the alternative. For the reasons given in *National Union,*a majority of the Court, without hearing oral argument, grants petitioners’ application for writ of error, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals, and remands the case to that court for filing of the statement of facts and consideration of all points of error not previously addressed. TexR.App.P. 170. We express no opinion on petitioners’ argument that the court of appeals erred in holding that two of the jury’s answers in their verdict were in irreconcilable conflict, or on whether this argument must be reconsidered by the court of appeals in light of the statement of facts. We do not reach petitioners’ alternative request for mandamus relief.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5851

HL-A Co, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4323

Scosche Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2567

_____________________________

HEATHER NAOMI STEVENSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Baker County.

James M. Colaw, Judge.

October 29, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

#### **SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

#### ** **

ThisCertificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of theUnited States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Theundersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer ofBehringer Harvard Opportunity REIT I, Inc. (the “Company”), each herebycertify as follows:

 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the “Report”), whichaccompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated this 13th day ofNovember, 2009.

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert S. Aisner                       |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   | Robert S. Aisner, Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                                       |
|   |                                       |
|   | /s/ Gary S. Bresky                         |
|   | Gary S. Bresky,  Chief Financial Officer   |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrantand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4260

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-3866

Whirlpool Corporation: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 of American Bio Medica Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 19, 2010 (the "Report"), I,
Stan Cipkowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Stan CipkowskiStan
      CipkowskiChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)January
      19, 2010
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 
 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of TechLite, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the Report), I, J.D. Arvidson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and
 
 (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  ****Date: August 19, 2004
By:
/s/ J.D. ArvidsonJ.D. ArvidsonChief Financial Officer
#### Susan Ann HOLTON, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Terrance GRIFFIN, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 65625.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 2, 1995.

Mark D. Hirschfeld, St. Louis, for appellant.

Nancy S. Everett, St. Louis, for respondent.

*211Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Father appeals from those portions of the trial court’s modification order sustaining mother’s request that father pay increased child support and her request for attorney fees. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
4ut(411t1f1-E-E 

m 

4 it 

EActs 

Amti1 

k # X 

11- #*t it it $1 

TG53.32 111 # 

255 .0 • 10 

B110533200000000 

ir 

I t tt 

00000000M90 I 10 

1940 

IMM.M.1111011111111Mi 1 

o 

INSP 

leo
<PAGE>





The Board of Directors
Pillowtex Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
33-65408, 33-84624, 33-81478, 333-39191 and 333-57727 on Form S-8 of Pillowtex
Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated January 28, 1998
(July 28, 1998 as to Note 8), relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
The Leshner Corporation and subsidiaries (a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Pillowtex Corporation) as of September 27, 1997 and September 28, 1996 and the
related consolidated statements of operations and earnings retained in the
business and cash flows for the years ended September 27, 1997,
September 28, 1996 and September 30, 1995, which report appears in the annual
report on Form 10-K of Pillowtex Corporation and subsidiaries for the year
ended January 2, 1999 as an exhibit.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Cincinnati, Ohio
March 29, 1999
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3063

M & M Poultry Equipment:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
Exhibit 31.3
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED
      a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by other within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and
the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):




---



##### 



a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: August 8, 2008
    /s/ Gerard H. SweeneyGerard H. SweeneyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-5700

Whirlpool Corporation: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September_2019.pdf. 

An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the exclusion notice. The scope of the exclusion is governed by the scope of the 10-digit HTSUS 

subheadings and product descriptions in the annex to the product exclusion notice, and not by the 

product descriptions set out in any particular request for exclusion. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel