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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1210 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1210

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 
     the estate tax deduction for family-owned business interests.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2001

  Mr. Smith of Washington (for himself, and Mr. Allen) 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 repeal the limitation on 
     the estate tax deduction for family-owned business interests.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Family-Owned Business Survival Act 
of 2001''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON ESTATE TAX DEDUCTION FOR FAMILY-OWNED 
              BUSINESS INTERESTS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 2057 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to family-owned business interests) is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(a) Allowance of Deduction.--For purposes of the tax imposed by 
section 2001, in the case of an estate of a decedent to which this 
section applies, the value of the taxable estate shall be determined by 
deducting from the value of the gross estate the adjusted value of the 
qualified family-owned business interests of the decedent which are 
described in subsection (b)(2).''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to estates of decedents dying after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18

- 3128

___________________________
United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Kevin Mitchell

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________
Submitted: November 11, 2019 Filed: February 25 , 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and E RICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM

.

In January 2018

, Kevin Mitchell entered a Walgreens in Omaha, N ebraska
armed with a machete and demanded to be taken to the store’s safe

. Mitchell then
ran the machete across an employee’s arm and stated, “See, it’s sharp .” The employees took Mitchell to the safe , and one employee managed to place a GPS tracking device with the money

. Mitchell took the cash and left. A short time later,
officers located Mitchell and arrest ed h im.-2-

In February 2018, a grand jury indicted Mitchell for one count of obstructing commerce by robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951

. Mitchell pleaded guilty without a plea agreement

. At sentencing, the district court 1 found that Mitchell qualified as a career offender under § 4B1.1 of the sentencing guidelines

. T he court calculated a
total offense level of 29 and a criminal history category of VI
, resulting in an advisory guideline range of 151 to 188 months. The district court sentenced Mitchell to 151 months’ imprisonment.

Mitchell now appeal s, argu ing that the district court erred in classifying him as a career offender because his conviction for robbery under 18 U. S.C. § 1951 does not qualify as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). “ We review
classification as a career offender de novo.” United States v. Quigley , 943 F.3d 390, 393 (8th Cir. 2019).

Because the district court would have given Mitchell t he same sentence regardless of the career

- offender enhancement, we find that any error was harmless. A district court’s sentencing error is harmless if the district court “specifies the resolution of a particular issue did not affect the ultimate det ermin ation of a

sentence

. ” United States v. Martinez , 821 F.3d 984, 988

- 89 (8th Cir. 2016). Here,
the court noted that it “would have pronounced the same sentence even if . . . [Mitchell’s] objections” to the enhancement had been meritorious. The court explained that th e sentence w as appropriate due to the “ serious ” and “scary” nature of the crime and the need to “ protect [] the public and afford [] adequate deterrence. ”
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Thus, a ny error in the district court’s application of the

career

- offender enhancement was harmless. See Martinez , 821 F.3d at 989 (noting that an improper career

- offender finding i s harmless when “the district

court

. . 

### . would have

. . . imposed the same sentence even if a lower guideline range applied”).

1 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.-3-

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

______________________________
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 01-51144

Summary Calendar

LINDA FUENTES, Parent and Next Friend of

Pablo Anastasio Llamas and Celia Llamas,

Minors and Celia Llamas,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

REEVES COUNTY, TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(P-00-CV-19)

September 23, 2002

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The plaintiffs, Linda Fuentes, parent and next friend of Pablo

Anastasio Llamas and Celia Llamas, minors, and Celia Llamas, are

the surviving minor children (represented by their mother as next
2

friend), and the surviving parent of Pablo Llamas-Espino (Llamas)

who was an inmate at the Reeves County Detention Center (RCDC)

between 1997 and 1999. Llamas died of a heart attack which he

sustained while incarcerated in his jail cell and the plaintiffs

brought suit against Reeves County, Texas, asserting that medical

personnel on duty at the jail facility were deliberately

indifferent to his medical needs. Reeves County moved for a

summary judgment and the district judge granted the motion and

entered a final judgment that plaintiffs take nothing. Plaintiffs

timely appeal to this Court. 

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts,

and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated

by the district judge in his order granting defendant’s motion for

summary judgment filed November 1, 2001, we affirm the final

judgment that the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendant are

dismissed with prejudice.

AFFIRMED.
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.

 June 24, 2014

p0616

Order 

Clerk

June 24, 2014

148377

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 148377

COA: 316726

Mecosta CC: 08-006239-FC

LEWIS CARL HURT, JR., Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
**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**

|   | (1) | The                Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Companies. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                November 1, 2007                                        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  /s/                Stephen P. Reynolds                                 |
| Stephen                P. Reynolds                                           |
| Chairman,                President andChief                Executive Officer |
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52441-52442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20930]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Data Collection Available for Public Comments and Recommendations

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 
notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to 
request approval on a new and/or currently approved information 
collection.

DATES: Submit comments on or before November 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments regarding whether this information 
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of 
the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are 
ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the 
collection, to Gail Hepler, Chief 7a Loan Policy Branch, Office of 
Financial Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 
SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Hepler, Chief 7a Loan Policy 
Branch, Office of Financial Assistance, 202-205-7530 
[email protected]; Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-7030 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In November 2005 SBA piloted a 1-year loan 
program specifically targeted to the counties and parishes that were 
declared disaster areas as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 
This pilot was extended to December 30, 2008. Lenders use primarily 
their own application, however, SBA requires the minimal information 
requested on these forms from lenders and borrowers to carry out its 
loan monitoring, portfolio risk management, and lender oversight 
activities associated with this loan pilot.
    Title: ``Gulf Coast Relief Financing Pilot Information 
Collection.''
    Description of Respondents: Small businesses devastated by 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
    Form Numbers: 2276 A, B, C and 2281.
    Annual Responses: 120.

[[Page 52442]]

    Annual Burden: 180.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. E8-20930 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

RUCKUS RECORDS, and GRANT 

SAXENA, Founder of Ruckus Records;

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

JEFFERY THOMAS ALLEN,

Defendant.

8:23CV167

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On September 5, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within 30 days or his Complaint would be dismissed 

without further notice. Filing No. 5. To date, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, filed a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis, or taken any other action in this matter, and the 

deadline to do so has passed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: This matter is dismissed without prejudice 

because Plaintiff failed to prosecute it diligently and failed to comply with a Court Order. 

The Court will enter judgment by a separate document.

Dated this 10th day of October, 2023.

8:23-cv-00167-JFB-PRSE Doc # 6 Filed: 10/10/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 20
2

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Court

8:23-cv-00167-JFB-PRSE Doc # 6 Filed: 10/10/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 21
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.                  

###### Federal Labor Relations Authority

# AGENCY:

Federal Labor Relations Authority. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the members of the Performance Review Board.

# DATES:

September 15, 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine V. Emerson, Acting Executive Director, Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA); 1400 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20424-0001; (202) 218-7945. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C. (as amended by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more Performance Review Boards (PRB). Section 4314(c)(4) requires that notice of appointment of the PRB be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

As required by 5 CFR 430.310, the following executives have been appointed to serve on the 2008-2009 PRB for the FLRA, beginning September 2008 through September 2009: 

Marcia Eugenio, Director, Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor & Human Trafficking, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Department of Labor; 

Bill Spencer, Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems Protection Board;

Rosa Koppel, Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations Authority; 

Catherine Emerson, Acting Executive Director, Federal Labor Relations Authority. 

Authority:5 U.S.C. 4134(c)(4). 

Dated: September 9, 2008. 

Catherine V. Emerson, 

Acting Executive Director.

[FR Doc. E8-21437 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6727-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-60-01-PB

Sandip Gupta

The defendant has moved to continue the July 6, 2006 trial in the above case. 

Defendant cites the need for additional time to complete efforts to negotiate a non-trial

disposition or otherwise prepare for a trial or other disposition of this case. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time to negotiate a non-trial

disposition, or properly prepare for trial, or other disposition, the court will continue the

trial from July 6, 2006 to September 6, 2006. In agreeing to continue the trial, the court

finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public

and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00060-PB Document 13 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The final pretrial conference is continued until August 28, 2006 at 4:30 P.M.

SO ORDERED.

June 20, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Donald Feith, Esq.

Barry Zone, Esq.

Lawrence Vogelman, Esq.

Robert Wolf, Esq.

U. S. Probation

U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00060-PB Document 13 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 2
|   | 1. | to      the best of our knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements      of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | to      the best of our knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of Registrant. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 15, 2010 | /s/ Andrew Stollman          |
|------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                         | Andrew      Stollman         |
|                         | President                    |
|                         |                         |
| Date:      November 15, 2010 | /s/ Thomas Plotts            |
|                         | Thomas      Plotts           |
|                         | Chief      Financial Officer |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2725

MAMIE DAUGHETY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID WAMSLEY; MARYLAND HOMES FOR THE HANDICAPPED; EMERGE INCORPORATED; EMERGE INCORPORATED, Board of Directors,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96-

2660-AMD)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mamie Daughety, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Edward Tiller, WHITEFORD,

TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland, Barbara Lee Ayres, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing her

action alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,

42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-17 (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. Daughety v.

Wamsley, No. CA-96-2660-AMD (D. Md. Nov. 1, 1996). 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>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999             MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998             NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,639,583                 515,816
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,708                   3,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    253,834                  60,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,017,530                 678,495
<PP&E>                                       2,873,667               2,575,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,272                 123,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,070,069               3,487,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,577,757               3,021,591
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        35,195                  17,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,070,069               3,487,335
<SALES>                                        492,169                 459,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,678,723              31,853,368
<CGS>                                          330,500                 310,930
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,517,054              31,704,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,096,719               1,082,081
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             321,303                 188,277
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,370,574)             (1,244,797)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,370,574)             (1,244,797)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
[No. 34354.

Department One.

December 19, 1957.]

#### F. B. Exner, *Appellant,*v. The Chehalis Fluoridation League *et al., Respondents.**1*

*McMicken, Rupp & Schweppe*and *Mary Ellen Krug,*for appellant.

*Lee J. Campbell,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 319 P. (2d) 543.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s finding that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof placed upon him to sustain his cause of action, and from the judgment of dismissal.

Appellant contends that the trial court required an improper degree of proof and that, therefore, the judgment should be reversed.

In finding No. 7, the court made two determinations, (1) that the appellant had not proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt, and (2), specifically, that an essential element did not exist. Hence, it is clear that the trial court found that the appellant had not sustained the burden of proof under any theory.

Our review of the record convinces us that the evidence does not preponderate in favor of the appellant.

Assuming that the judgment of the trial court is based upon an erroneous ground, it will be sustained if correct upon any ground within the pleadings and established by the proof. *Ennis v. Ring,*49 Wn. (2d) 284, 300 P. (2d) *446773 (1956), and case cited; *Witzel v. Tena,*48 Wn. (2d) 628, 295 P. (2d) 1115 (1956), and cases cited.

The judgment is affirmed.