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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 696

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the deduction

for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals for taxable

years beginning in 1994.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1995

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (for himself, Mr. CRANE, Mr. STUMP, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. EWING, Mr. HANCOCK, Mr. HOKE, Mr. GILCHREST,

and Mr. UPTON) 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 deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals for taxable years beginning in 1994.

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 ‘‘Bartlett-Mfume Health

5 Insurance Deduction Act’’.
2

•HR 696 IH

1 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSUR2 ANCE COSTS OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVID3 UALS FOR TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING IN

4 1994.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (6) of section 162(l)

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special

7 rules for health insurance costs of self-employed individ8 uals) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 1993’’ and

9 inserting ‘‘December 31, 1994’’.

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

11 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

12 December 31, 1993.

Æ
#### James E. Metcalf v. State

No. 25629.

January 9, 1952.

Hon. A. A. Dawson, Judge Presiding.

*Bert*Ashby, Dallas, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, four years.

No statement of facts accompanies the record.

Bill of Exception No. 1 is to the admission of testimony. There is no showing in the bill as to what the testimony com*576plained of was. The bill does not show that any objectionable testimony was admitted and, therefore, presents nothing for review. Tex. Dig. Crim. Law 1120(4).

Bill of Exception No. 2 seeks to attack the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. We cannot pass upon such a bill without a statement of facts.

What we have said in discussing Bill of Exception No. 2 applies to Bill of Exception No. 3, wherein appellant complains of absence of corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6639

ORRANDY GOODWYN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; D. SCOTT DODRILL,

Warden, Low Security Correctional InstitutionButner,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-02-63-5-HO)

Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: August 23, 2002

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Orrandy Goodwyn, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Orrandy Goodwyn seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Goodwyn v. United States, No. CA-02-63-5-HO

(E.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5  U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; To review an unsolicited P01.                     

*Date:*                         September 8, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         10 a.m. to 4 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817,  (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Thames E. Pickett, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616,  301-496-2550,                         *pickettte@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Anna Snouffer, 

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-18746 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
**Exhibit23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 033-95702, 033-97542, 333-02828, 333-02892,333-20245, 333-24493, 333-30328, 333-40185 and 333-123434 of ProtectionOne, Inc. on Form S-8, and in Registration StatementNo. 333-50383 of Protection One, Inc. and Protection One AlarmMonitoring, Inc. on Form S-3, of our report dated March 16,2006, April 10, 2006, as to the effects of the restatement discussed in Note 17(which report contains an explanatory paragraph discussing the restatement ofthe consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2005 and for theperiod February 9, 2005 through December 31, 2005), relating to theconsolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement scheduleof Protection One, Inc., appearing in this Amended Annual Report onForm 10-K/A of Protection One, Inc. and Protection One AlarmMonitoring, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 
| DELOITTE  & TOUCHE LLP |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
|                       |
| Kansas  City, Missouri     |
| April  10, 2006            |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


     I,  Mitchell  Binder, Chief Financial Officer of Orbit International Corp.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as enacted by  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:
(1)     the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2008 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies
with  the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of  1934;  and
(2)     information  contained  in  the  Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of operations of Orbit
International  Corp.
Dated: May 15, 2008
                                   /s/ Mitchell Binder
                                   -------------------
                                   Mitchell Binder
                                   Chief Financial Officer

A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Orbit International Corp. and will
be  retained  by  Orbit  International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.
#### Jaime Arnoldo ALVARADO-GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 02-70795.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 21, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jaime Amoldo Alvarado-Gomez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Because the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) apply, *Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We deny the petition for review.

We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s determination that Alvarado-Gomez has not established eligibility for asylum, and must uphold the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary result. *Cruz-Navarro v. INS,*232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir.2000).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that any past persecution Alvarado-Gomez experienced was due solely to his employment in the Civil Patrol, which is not a basis for asylum. *Cruz-Navarro,*232 F.3d at 1029 (“Persecution occurring because a person is a current member of a police force or military ... is not *on account of*one of the grounds enumerated in the Act.”) (quotations omitted); *Chanco v. INS,*82 F.3d 298, 302-03 (9th Cir.1996) (same).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Alvarado-Gomez did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. Although reprisals against Alvardo-Gomez because of his past membership in the Civil Patrol could provide a basis for granting asylum, Alvarado-Gomez failed to *998show that he may be singled out for attack because of his experience in the Civil Patrol. *Chanco,*82 F.3d at 303. Moreover, Alvarado-Gomez’s testimony that he is afraid of returning to Guatemala because “no one is secure” there does not provide a basis for asylum. *Singh v. INS,*134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that “[m]ere generalized lawlessness and violence” is insufficient.).

In failing to qualify for asylum, Alvarado-Gomez necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. *Ghaly v. INS,*58 F.3d 1425, 1429 (9th Cir.1995).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4032

___________

Charles Pointer, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 26, 2006

Filed: September 26, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Pointer appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his Title VII suit claiming race and sex discrimination, and the court’s denial of his

postjudgment motions. We affirm.

First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pointer’s

discovery motions. See Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 911

(8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review for denial of motion for continuance under Fed.
-2-

R. Civ. P. 56(f)); Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam)

(standard of review for denial of motion to compel discovery). Second, upon de novo

review, see Evers v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 241 F.3d 948, 953 (8th Cir. 2001), we

conclude Pointer did not present evidence demonstrating that he was qualified for the

position for which he applied. See Pope v. ESA Servs., Inc., 406 F.3d 1001, 1006 (8th

Cir. 2005) (burden-shifting framework); Mayer v. Nextel W. Corp., 318 F.3d 803, 809

(8th Cir. 2003) (“Evidence, not contentions, avoids summary judgment.”); Caviness

v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., 105 F.3d 1216, 1223 (8th Cir. 1997) (to establish prima

facie case under Title VII for discriminatory failure to hire, plaintiff must be able to

prove, inter alia, that he applied and was qualified for position for which employer

was seeking applicants). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Pointer’s postjudgment motions. See Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998

(8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion);

Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d

1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review for denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Pointer’s appellate motion for sanctions.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,663
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,364
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,351
<INVENTORY>                                     15,849
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,101
<PP&E>                                          28,449
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,008
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,337
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,733
<SALES>                                        103,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,842
<CGS>                                           59,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,835
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (22)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,993
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,235
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,993
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,758
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Protection One, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2008 (the "Report"), which this certification accompanies, I, Darius G. Nevin, in my capacity as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Protection
One, Inc., certify that to the best of my knowledge the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Protection One, Inc.

Date:

March 16, 2009

/s/ Darius G. Nevin Darius G. Nevin
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Protection One, Inc.


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Companies as part
of the Report or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---



QuickLinks
#### GARDINER v. MONTEGUT.*

No. 16396.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 4, 1937.

For prior opinion, see 175 So. 120.

R. A. Tichenor, Sr., and Hubert M. Ans-ley, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Wm. H. Talbot, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

*

 writ of certiorari refused Oct. 29, 1937.

PER CURIAM.

In an application for rehearing counsel for plaintiff-appellant suggests that, inasmuch as the plea of prescription which we sustained and on which we dismissed this suit was filed in this court and had never been, considered by the court a qua, we should have remanded the matter in order to afford to the trial court an opportunity to consider the plea and to appellant an opportunity to introduce such evidence touching upon the possible interruption of prescription as may be available.

We recognize the rule to the effect that where, in an appellate court, a plea of prescription is filed and in answer thereto it is contended that there has been an in*228terruption of prescription and that evidence thereon is necessary, the matter should be remanded in order that such evidence may be introduced. Huerstel v. Pingel, 16 La.App. 343, 134 So. 437.

“If the plea of prescription is filed by the defendant, for the first time, in the Supreme Court, and the plaintiff demands it, the cause will be remanded to try that issue in the court below.” Landers v. Tuggle, 22 La.Ann. 443.

Here, however, when defendant-appellee filed the plea of prescription, plaintiff-appellant, instead of praying for a remand of the case, submitted the entire matter after argument on the plea of prescription both orally and in brief and on the record as made up. The suggestion, therefore, that we remand the case, comes, we think, too late. Long v. Succession of Scott, 21 La.Ann. 120.

The rehearing is refused.

Rehearing refused.
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 amended Annual Report of Arotech Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert S. Ehrlich,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, hereby certify that the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                             By:           /s/ Robert S. Ehrlich
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Robert S. Ehrlich, Chairman, President and CEO
                                 (Chief Executive Officer)

Date:  August 15, 2005
**PROMISSORY
      NOTE**





December
      3, 1999





FOR
      VALUE
      RECEIVED, the undersigned (“Maker”) hereby promises to pay to the order of
      Electric Fuel Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“EFC”), on the earlier of (a)
      ten years from the date of this note or (b) the date of termination of the
      Maker’s employment with EFC, the principal sum of One Hundred Sixty-Seven
      Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Five dollars (U.S. $167,975), together with simple
      interest from the date hereof on the principal amount at a per annum rate equal
      to 2%. Simple interest on this note will be calculated and charged, in advance,
      based on a term of ten years, and will be due and payable in proportional
      payments when principal is paid. This note may be prepaid in whole or in part
      at
      any time, without premium, penalty or prior notice.




This
      note
      is secured by a pledge to EFC of the 125,000 shares of EFC’s common stock, par
      value$.01 per share (the “Common Stock”), acquired with this note (the “Pledged
      Shares”). The recourse under this note shall only be to the Pledged
      Shares.




To
      perfect EFC’s security interest in the Pledged Shares, the Maker shall deliver
      to EFC the stock certificate or certificates representing the Pledged Shares,
      together with stock powers duly endorsed in blank. EFC shall release its
      security interest in the Pledged Shares in proportion to payment of principal
      and interest owed hereunder.




This
      note
      shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws (other than
      the
      conflict of law rules) of the State of New York.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand as of this 3 rd day of
      December, 1999.







Robert
      S.
      Ehrlich