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

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6514 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an above-the-line 

deduction for health insurance premiums. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2022 

Mr. BIGGS 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 allow an 

above-the-line deduction for health insurance premiums. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE PRE4 MIUMS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part VII of subchapter B of chap6 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

7 by redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by insert8 ing after section 223 the following new section: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6514 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 224. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE PRE2 MIUMS. 

3 ‘‘In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed 

4 as a deduction for the taxable year amounts paid by the 

5 taxpayer for insurance which constitutes medical care (as 

6 defined in section 213(d)) for the taxpayer and the tax7 payer’s spouse and dependents. No amount allowed as a 

8 deduction under the preceding sentence shall be taken into 

9 account in determining any deduction or credit otherwise 

10 allowable to the taxpayer (or any other taxpayer) under 

11 this chapter.’’. 

12 (b) DEDUCTION ALLOWED WHETHER OR NOT INDI13 VIDUAL ITEMIZES OTHER DEDUCTIONS.—Subsection (a) 

14 of section 62 of such Code is amended by inserting before 

15 the last sentence at the end the following new paragraph: 

16 ‘‘(22) DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE

17 PREMIUMS.—The deduction allowed by section 

18 224.’’. 

19 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

20 for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code 

21 is amended by redesignating the item relating to section 

22 224 as an item relating to section 225 and by inserting 

23 after the item relating to section 223 the following new 

24 item: 

‘‘Sec. 224. Deduction for health insurance premiums.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6514 IH

1 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2021. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0028 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TIMOTHY JOHN STRYKER ,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 8, 2021 within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 5 2021

10/05/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0028
Exhibit 31


I, Michelle Gill, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
10-K of GSAMP Trust 2006-FM1 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole,
do 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange
Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as
Servicer, GS Securities Mortgage Corp., as Depositor and Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company, as Trustee.



                                          Date: April 2, 2007

                                          /s/ Michelle Gill
                                          ----------------------------
                                          Michelle Gill
                                          Vice President
                                          GS Mortgage Securities Corp.
#### CLARK v. DELTA TANK MFG. CO.

No. 2694.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit

May 10, 1945.

For former opinion, see 21 So.2d 93.

Samuel M. Robertson and J. H. Inman, both of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Blanche & Wilson, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant did not file an application for rehearing within the time limit as fixed by the Constitution of this State. See Sec. 24, Art. 7, Constitution of 1921. After the period had expired, his counsel filed a motion for an extension of time in which to present an application. This motion was promptly opposed by counsel for the appellee.

The motion for extension of time is now renewed through an attorney other than the one who previously conducted the case. In a motion requesting that the present attorney be entered of record as chief counsel, it is stated that former counsel “desires to relinquish responsibility for the further conduct of this cause as such for the reason that features of the Court’s opinion rendered herein on March 5, 1945 make it inconsistent with proper decorum and with counsel’s ethical conceptions that he should continue as counsel of record, except in a nominal capacity, * * *‡»*

We cannot understand how counsel can take exception to anything that is stated in the opinion referred to. He raised a proper legal objection to the admission of certain testimony which was excluded from the record. The opinion merely recites what transpired as appears from the record and reflects the impression that was created in the mind of the court. Certainly it bears no allusion to any impropriety on the part of counsel.

If by no other means we can do so, we hope by this per curiam to give counsel every assurance that it was never intended, in the least, to reflect in any manner on his integrity and ability and on the contrary will state that the record bears evidence of the zeal and earnestness with which he handled his client’s case.

It is impossible however for us to consider the motion for extension of time in which to file an application for rehearing as under the provision of the State Constitution already referred to, judgments rendered by this court become final and executory on the fifteenth calendar day after rendition. If the application is not filed in time the court is powerless to grant additional delay in which to file it. Gauth-reaux v. Harang, 190 La. 1060, 183 So. 349.

Therefore the motion cannot be considered.
#### Robert W. GARRETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph E. COLLIER, Investigator for Edgefield County Sheriffs Department; Mike V. Goodman, Investigator for Edgefield County Sheriffs Department; Ervin J. Maye, Assistant Solicitor, sued in their individual capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-7157.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 14, 2002.

*632Robert W. Garrett, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Robert W. Garrett appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Garrett v. Collier,*No. CA-02-1887-6-10AK (D.S.C. July 23, 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.

*DISMISSED.*
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2022 Workiva-->
<!--r:e2425bf7-dc88-4884-b52d-369f181385b8,g:3c314593-824c-4aef-bd3a-2231b813e9a2-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:cinf="http://www.cinfin.com/20220927" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.cinfin.com/20220927">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2022" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2022/dei-2022.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20220927_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20220927_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPageCoverPage" roleURI="http://www.cinfin.com/role/CoverPageCoverPage">
        <link:definition>0001001 - Document - Cover Page Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Edward SIMMS, a/k/a DeNasty, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4991.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 20, 2002.

Decided Nov. 8, 2002.

Michael D. Montemarano, Michael D. Montemarano, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Simms appeals his 240 month sentence entered after remand for resen*128tencing on his conviction for conspiracy to distribute narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000). The Government has filed a motion which we construe as one for summary affirmance.

We grant the Government’s motion for summary affirmance. 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>        
                THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED
                FROM THE  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND
                THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND OF CASH FLOWS
                FOR THE NINE MONTHS  ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1998 OF PHELPS  DODGE
                CORPORATION  AND  ITS  SUBSIDIARIES  AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS
                ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                          1,000
<CURRENCY>                                            U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                               1
<CASH>                                                  309,500
<SECURITIES>                                                  0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                           395,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0      
<INVENTORY>                                             289,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      1,163,600
<PP&E>                                                3,512,900
<DEPRECIATION>                                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        5,031,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   637,500
<BONDS>                                                 815,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                362,600
<OTHER-SE>                                            2,261,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          5,031,000
<SALES>                                               2,356,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      2,356,700
<CGS>                                                 1,790,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         1,790,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         61,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       66,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         376,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                            138,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     232,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                            232,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              3.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              3.97
        

</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- EJB Facilities Services Under Contract No. N44255-05-D-5103 APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 58314

Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq.

Brown Rudnick LLP Washington, DC Ronald J. Borro, Esq.

Navy ChiefTrial Attorney Robert C. Ashpole, Esq.

Senior Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL Both parties having advised the Board that they have reached a settlement, and appellant having moved "that its Appeal before the Board be dismissed with prejudice," this appeal is hereby dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 30 January 2014

Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCANo. 58314, Appeal ofEJB Facilities Services, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

 September 8, 2017

a0905

Order 

Clerk

September 8, 2017

155829 & (59)(60)

KIMBERLY HATCHER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155829

COA: 330062

Macomb CC: 2013-003906-NF

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to 

the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the application for 

leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightning Gaming, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  (the “Report”), each of us certifies as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, to the best of our respective knowledge, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Registrant at the dates and for the periods indicated.





A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Date: November 15, 2010


By:  /s/ Brian Haveson


Brian Haveson


Chief Executive Officer








Date:  November 15, 2010


By:  /s/ Robert Ciunci


Robert Ciunci


Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 15.4**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors

Hollysys Automation Technologies Ltd.

No. 2 Disheng Middle Road

Beijing Economic-Technological Development Area

Beijing 100176

P.R. China

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-170811) of Hollysys Automation Technologies Ltd. of our report dated September21, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2011, which appears in this Form 20-F.

 

/s/ BDO Limited

 

Hong Kong

 

September 27, 2013
OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION
                  EXHIBIT 11: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
                                                         Three Months Ended June 30,    Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                         ---------------------------    -------------------------
(Dollars and Shares in Millions Except per Share Data)     1999               1998        1999             1998
                                                         --------           --------    --------         --------
<S>                                                       <C>                <C>        <C>              <C>
Basic Earnings per Share:
 Net Income (Loss)                                         $33.8             ($3.8)        $21.9          ($12.1)

 Weighted Average Number of Shares                          20.4              20.4          20.4            20.4
                                                            ----              ----          ----            ----
 Basic Earnings (Loss) Per Share                           $1.66            ($0.19)        $1.07          ($0.59)
                                                            ====              ====          ====            ====

Diluted Earnings Per Share:
 Net Income (Loss)                                         $33.8             ($3.8)        $21.9          ($12.1)

 Weighted Average Number of Shares                          20.4              20.4          20.4            20.4
 Common Stock Equivalents (Stock Options)                    0.2                --           0.2              --
                                                            ----              ----          ----            ----
 Average Shares Outstanding                                 20.6              20.4          20.6            20.4
                                                            ----              ----          ----            ----
   Diluted Earnings (Loss) Per Share                       $1.64            ($0.19)        $1.06          ($0.59)
                                                            ====              ====          ====            ====
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7233

TYRONE JOHNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROY COOPER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,

Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00242-FDW)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Johnson, a North Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal 

the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) federal habeas petition. The district court’s final 

order was entered on March 31, 2015. We construe Johnson’s 

notice of appeal as having been filed, at the earliest, on 

August 4, 2015, the date appearing on that document. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 

In his notice of appeal, Johnson stated that he did not receive 

notice of the district court’s order until August 3, 2015.

Parties are accorded 30 days after entry of the district 

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal 

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal 

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a 

notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

Johnson’s notice of appeal is clearly untimely. However, 

under Rule 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the time to 

file an appeal if (1) the moving party did not receive notice of 

entry of judgment within 21 days after entry, (2) the motion is 

filed within 180 days of entry of judgment or within 14 days of 

receiving notice from the court, whichever is earlier, and (3) 

no party would be prejudiced. We remand for the limited purpose 
3

of permitting the district court to determine whether Johnson is 

entitled to the benefit of Rule 4(a)(6) to reopen the time to 

file an appeal. The record, as supplemented, will then be 

returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED