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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5574 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the dollar threshold 

applicable to information reporting with respect to payments for qualified 

natural disaster expenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2023 

Ms. PETTERSEN (for herself and Mr. LAMALFA) 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 increase 

the dollar threshold applicable to information reporting 

with respect to payments for qualified natural disaster 

expenses. 

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 ‘‘Natural Disaster Prop5 erty Protection Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5574 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN THRESHOLD REQUIRING INFORMA2 TION REPORTING TO RESPECT TO QUALI3 FIED NATURAL DISASTER EXPENSES. 

4 (a) RETURNS REGARDING PAYMENT IN COURSE OF

5 TRADE OR BUSINESS.—Section 6041 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(h) INCREASED THRESHOLD FOR QUALIFIED NAT9 URAL DISASTER EXPENSES.— 

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a payment 

11 for a qualified natural disaster expense, subsection 

12 (a) shall be applied by substituting ‘$5,000’ for 

13 ‘$600’. 

14 ‘‘(2) QUALIFIED NATURAL DISASTER EX15 PENSE.—For purposes of this subsection, the term 

16 ‘qualified natural disaster expense’ means— 

17 ‘‘(A) an expense incurred to mitigate the 

18 risk posed to real property by natural disasters 

19 or extreme weather, or 

20 ‘‘(B) an expense incurred to repair damage 

21 done to real property by natural disasters or ex22 treme weather.’’. 

23 (b) RETURNS REGARDING PAYMENTS OF REMU24 NERATION FOR SERVICES.—Section 6041A of such Code 

25 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub26 section: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5574 IH

1 ‘‘(g) INCREASED THRESHOLD FOR QUALIFIED NAT2 URAL DISASTER EXPENSES.—In the case of a payment 

3 for a qualified natural disaster expense (as defined in sec4 tion 6041(h)(2)), subsection (a)(2) shall be applied by 

5 substituting ‘$5,000’ for ‘$600’.’’. 

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

7 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

8 the date of the enactment of this section. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. B R IAN R O B ER T GILL, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30210

D.C . No. 2:09-c r-00418-JC C -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C o u ghe nour, Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d July

9, 2014 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, KLEINFELD, a nd M UR G UIA, C i rc uit Judge s. B rian Gill a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r c ontinuing the te rm s of his supe rvise d re le a se without modific ation. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3742 a nd 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd a ffirm . 

# FIL ED JUL 15 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Gill c ha l le nge s a c ondition of his supe

rvise d re le a se that re quire s him to a bide by a ll rule s a

nd life sty le re stric tions im pose d by his the ra pist a s pa rt of his se xua l -de via

n c y tre at m e nt progra

m . He argue s, a s he did be low, tha t this c ondition im pe rm issibly de le gate s the distric t c ourt’ s judic ia l a uthority to Gill’ s the ra

p ist. Gill, howe ve r, ra ise d this c ha lle nge for the first tim e in a m e m o randum a sking thedistric t

c ourt to m odify

the c onditions of his supe rvise d re le a se . C ongre ss ha s “ lim ite d the m anne r in whic h a de fe n da nt m a y c h a lle nge the le ga lity of a supe rvise d re le a se c ondition to: (1) dire c t a p pe a l, (2) § 2255 ha

be a s c orpus re lie f, and (3) . . . [a ] R

ule 35(c ) m o tion.” Unite d State s v . Gross , 307 F.3d 1043, 1044 (9th C ir. 2002). A distric t c o urt m a

y not m odify

the c onditions of a

de fe nda nt’ s supe rvise d re le a se ba se d on thede fe nda nt’ s c la im tha t a c e rta in c ondition is ille g a l. Id. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not err in orde ring Gill’ s supe rvise d re le a se to c ontinuewithout modific ation. AFFIRM ED.

2
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-2018-0025-6470

Western Diversified Plastics, LLC:

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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5449 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to make fraudulent dealings in 

firearms and ammunition unlawful, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 

Ms. SCANLON (for herself, Mr. RYAN, and Mr. EVANS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to make fraudulent 

dealings in firearms and ammunition unlawful, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stopping the Fraudu5 lent Sales of Firearms Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FRAUDULENT DEALINGS IN FIREARMS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 922(a) of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and 

10 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5449 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(10) for any person— 

3 ‘‘(A) to import, manufacture, or sell a fire4 arm or ammunition by means of false or fraud5 ulent pretenses, representations, or promises; 

6 and 

7 ‘‘(B) to transmit or cause to be trans8 mitted, by means of wire, radio, or television 

9 communication in interstate or foreign com10 merce, any communication relating to the im11 portation, manufacture, or sale described in 

12 subparagraph (A).’’. 

13 (b) PENALTY.—Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, 

14 United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘(a)(10),’’ 

15 before ‘‘(f)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Specimen common share certificate of Alterra Capital Holdings Limited



 Exhibit 4.1 

 

 

 COMMON SHARES 

Alterra Capital Holdings Limited 

(Incorporated in the Islands of Bermuda 

under The Companies Act, 1981) 

PAR VALUE OF SHARES US$1.00 

This Certifies that is the registered holder of Shares transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder
hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. 
 In Witness Whereof, The
said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto affixed this th day of A.D.20 

Director Director/Secretary 

C GOES 722 

All Rights Reserved
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Roy T. Brooks, President and CEO, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mountain Bank Holding Company.

(2) Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

(4) The registrants other certifying officer
and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

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 others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) 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; and

c) 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 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; and

b) 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: March 10, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    ROY T.
BROOKS          
|                     |  |  |  | Roy T. Brooks, President & CEO
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Money Tree Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 25, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Bradley D. Bellville, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven P. Morrison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of The
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: February 17, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Bradley D. Bellville
|                        |  |     |  | Bradley D. Bellville    
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|                        |  |    
|Date: February 17, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Steven P. Morrison  
|                        |  |     |  | Steven P. Morrison      
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ending October 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael D. Queen, Principal Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

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.



/s/ Michael D. Queen

Michael D. Queen,

Principal Executive Officer

December 20, 2010
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

November 25, 2014

h1117 

# Order

Clerk November 25, 2014

148477(18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148477

COA: 317255

Lake CC: 12

- 005013

- FH;

12

- 005014

- FH

PAUL DEAN BURNS, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 28,

2014 order is considered, and it is DE NIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
Company) for the three months ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Alan M. Pearce, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 form 10-Q fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended: and

(2) The information contained in the Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: February 14, 2007



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|/s/ Alan M. Pearce               
|Alan M. Pearce                   
|Chief Financial Officer; Director

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Accentia Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the
date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

End of Filing
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50213

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

CLARENCE CALLIES,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:01-CR-4-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Clarence Callies, federal prisoner # 13001-180, is serving a total term of

240 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of

crack cocaine and possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of

crack cocaine. He appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion,

wherein he sought a reduction of sentence based on the retroactive amendments

to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the Sentencing Guideline for crack cocaine offenses.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 13, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 09-50213 Document: 00511444333 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2011
No. 09-50213

The government has moved for summary affirmance, arguing that Callies

was not eligible for a sentencing reduction because he was sentenced to the

statutory mandatory minimum. Callies argues this case should be remanded to

the district court so it may resentence him under the provisions of the Fair

Sentencing Act (FSA), which became effective during the pendency of the instant

appeal. See Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372

(2010).

Section 3582(c)(2) permits a district court to reduce a term of

imprisonment when it is based upon a sentencing range that has subsequently

been lowered by an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, if such a reduction

is consistent with the policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.

See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691 (2010). We review a district

court’s denial of a reduction of sentence under Section 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of

discretion, its interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, and its

findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th

Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3462 (2010).

Callies has not shown that the district court erred in determining that he

was ineligible for a reduction of sentence because he was sentenced to the

statutory mandatory minimum. See United States v. Carter, 595 F.3d 575, 578-

79 (5th Cir. 2010). Callies’ argument that the FSA should be retroactively

applied to his case is without merit. The Federal Savings Clause precludes

retroactive application of the FSA. United States v. Doggins, 633 F.3d 379, 384

(5th Cir. 2011).

The government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The

government’s motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

2

Case: 09-50213 Document: 00511444333 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2011
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9698]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting 
of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) National Advisory 
Council in May 1995.
    The Council meeting will include a discussion of administrative 
matters, announcements, SAMHSA and CSAP National Advisory Council 
subcommittee reports, and reports on the SAMHSA Strategic Plan Field 
Meetings.
    A summary of this meeting and a roster of committee members may be 
obtained from: Ms. Vera Hunter, Acting Committee Management Officer, 
CSAP, Rockwall II Building, Suite 7A-140, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, 
MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-9540.
    Substantive program information may be obtained from the contact 
whose name, room number, and telephone number is listed below.

Committee Name: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Advisory 
Council.
Meeting Date(s): May 25-26, 1995.
Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, Maryland 
20814.
Open: May 25, 1995--8:30 a.m.-Adjournment; May 26, 1995--8:00 a.m- 
Adjournment.
Contact: Yuth Nimit, Ph.D., Rockwall II Building, Suite 7A-140; 
Telephone (301) 443-9540.

    Dated: April 14, 1995.
Jeri Lipov,
Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-9698 Filed 4-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1570

STEVEN BENEZRA, individually; MELISSA YORK, individually,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

ZACKS INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC., inclusive, individually; 

ZACKS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC., inclusive, individually; 

LEONARD HARVEY ZACKS, inclusive, individually; BENJAMIN LAIB 

ZACKS, inclusive, individually; MITCHEL ETHAN ZACKS, 

inclusive, individually,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:11-cv-00596-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: November 30, 2012 Decided: December 13, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul A. Demontesquiou, THE LAW OFFICES OF WALSH & DEMONTESQUIOU, 

Marvin, North Carolina, for Appellants. Tobias S. Hampson, 

David N. Jonson, WYRICK, ROBBINS, YATES & PONTON, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Benezra and Melissa York seek to appeal the 

district court’s order denying their request for a hearing, 

compelling arbitration, and staying the case pending 

arbitration. Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act governs 

appellate review of arbitration orders. 9 U.S.C. § 16 (2006). 

Section 16(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may be taken from 

. . . a final decision with respect to an arbitration.” 

However, § 16(b)(1) provides that “an appeal may not be taken 

from an interlocutory order . . . granting a stay of any action 

under section 3 of this title.” The order Benezra seeks to 

appeal is not a final decision with respect to an arbitration, 

but rather an interlocutory order granting a stay. See Green 

Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 87 n.2 (2000). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Jeb S. COY, Appellant, v. Sherry L. EATON, Respondent.

No. WD 49057.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 26, 1994.

Craig D. Ritchie, St. Joseph, for appellant.

George W. Richardson, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Jeb S. Coy appeals the trial court’s order granting his ex-wife, the custodial parent, permission to remove a minor child from the state. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).