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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1329 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1329

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the credit for 
               increasing research activities permanent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 2001

Mr. Sensenbrenner 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 make the credit for 
               increasing research activities permanent.

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

SECTION 1. RESEARCH CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to credit for increasing research activities) is amended by 
striking subsection (h).
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 45C(b) of such 
Code is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred after June 30, 2004.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21788]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group, Developmental Biology 
Subcommittee.
    Date: October 13-14, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Crowne Plaza Washington National Airport, 1489 Jefferson 
Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202.
    Contact Person: Norman Chang, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 
5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1485, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#67040f06090009270a060e0b49090e0f49000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="04676c656a636a4469656d682a6a6d6c2a636b72">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 10, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-21788 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Schultz *v.*Daugherty Refining Company (et al., Appellant.)

Argued April 19, 1938.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker and Rhodes, JJ.

*608
      *David M. Kaufman,*with him *Leonard H. Krieger,*for appellant.

*Carmen V. Marinaro,*for appellee.

April 29, 1938:

Per Curiam,

There is no essential difference in the facts between this case and *Massett v. Armerford Coal Mining Company,*82 Pa. Superior Ct. 579. On the authority of that case the judgment must be reversed. Just as in the Massett-Armerford case the evidence here does not sustain a finding that the injury to the plaintiff’s left eye amounts to the permanent loss of the use of the eye, for which compensation can be awarded, under section 306(c), for the loss of an eye.

The referee and the Board having erroneously concluded that the injury to the claimant’s eye brought him under section 306(c) gave no attention to the question of partial disability, if any, resulting from the injury. It is admitted that claimant returned to work on December 16, 1935, so that he is not entitled since that date to compensation for total disability under section 306(a). If he is entitled to any further compensation it must be under section 306(b) relating to partial disability.

Following the Massett-Armerford case the record will be remitted to the Board to consider and determine that question, in the light, however, of our recent decisions. See *Sayre v. Textile Machine Works,*129 Pa. Superior Ct. 520, 195 A. 786, and cases therein cited.

The judgment is reversed and the record is remitted to the court below with directions to re-commit it to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for further hearing and determination in accordance with this opinion.
<PAGE>


                                                                    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

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rand
Capital Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

         The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2004 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 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: November 10, 2004

                                                /s/ Allen F. Grum
                                            --------------------------
                                             Allen F. Grum, President
                                            (Chief Executive Officer)


  Dated: November 10, 2004

                                                /s/ Daniel P. Penberthy
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer
                                              (Chief Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21643]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, 
September 18, 2008 at 1 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
September 18, 2008 will be:
    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature;
    An adjudicatory matter; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 11, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21643 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 0433 V

UNPUBLISHED

KATIE M. MILLER

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: November 21, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;
Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;
Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;

Brachial Neuritis

David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA , for petitioner.

Mallori Browne Openchowski , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for

respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On March 22, 2019

, Katie Miller filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that that she suffered a left Shoulder Injury Related to

Vaccine Administration , or in the alternative

, a “ left brachial plexitis

, ” as a result of a Tdap vaccination administered on April 25, 2016 . Petit ion at Introduction . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On November 20, 2020

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. In the report

, R espondent “ concluded that petitioner suffered a Table injury

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required
to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

- Government Act

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2 under the Vaccine Act ” consistent with brachia l neuritis, the onset of which occurred with in

two to t wenty

- eight days following her April 25, 2016 Tdap vaccination. 3 Id. at 7

- 8

. With

resp ect to other statutory and jurisdictional issues, Respondent agr ees that the recor ds show that the case was timely filed , that the vaccine was received in the United States,

and that Petitioner suffered the residual effects or complications of her injury for more

than six months after vac cine administration. Id . at 8.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

3 Respondent concludes that Petitioner has not met the Table requirements for SIRVA. ECF 3 5 at 8 n.7.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS),  Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted via telephone conference call. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 21, 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 1 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, October 21, 2008, at 9 a.m., Eastern Time via a telephone conference call. For more information or to confirm attendance, notification of intent to attend the meeting must be made with Audrey Y. Jenkins at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-2085. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please write Audrey Y. Jenkins, TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or you can post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                 

The agenda will include various IRS issues. 

Dated: August 29, 2008. 

Roy L. Block, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E8-20948 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### The CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida ex rel. The TARPON SPRINGS COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, a Corporation, et al., Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

Sept. 19, 1956.

James M. Stevens and C. Archie Clement, Tarpon Springs, for appellant.

J. C. Davant, Clearwater, for appellees.

DREW, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of ouster entered against the appellant, City of Tarpon Springs, in a quo warranto proceeding ousting the City *of all*jurisdiction over certain lands which had been embraced within its corporate limits since the year 1925.

The answer of the City not only denied all of the material allegations of the information but alleged substantial and pertinent facts as a basis for affirmative relief. Following the filing of the City’s answer, relator, appellee here, moved for the entry of a judgment of ouster notwithstanding the answer. This motion was granted and the judgment appealed from was entered without any evidence being adduced.

The disposition of this case is ruled squarely by our judgment in City of Or-mond v. State, 152 Fla. 419, 12 So.2d 114, and in the earlier case of City of Coral Gables v. State, 148 Fla. 671, 5 So.2d 241, 244. In the latter case pursuant to a motion by relator for judgment of ouster notwithstanding the return, the Circuit Judge, without taking any evidence, entered a judgment of ouster.

There we said:

> “Allegations about the remoteness of the property were contained in the petition and were flatly denied in the return which placed the burden of proving them on the relators. There were incorporated in the answer certain affirmative pertinent statements with reference to the development and improvement of the city and the availability to the co-relators when needed of all public utilities and other services expected of a municipality and usually furnished or performed by one. Thus, issuable questions of estoppel and physical conditions were raised which necessitated the introduction of testimony.”

In the former case in dealing with the identical question we said:

> “This court is committed to the rule that judgment on the pleadings will not *607be given for relator when the answer alleges facts presenting an issue necessitating a trial. Watson v. Phipps, 99 Fla. 568, 126 So. 778; City of Coral Gables v. State, 148 Fla. 671, 5 So.2d 241. It was therefore error to enter judgment on the pleading in this case and the judgment is reversed.”

The record in this case clearly established that the answer of the respondent, City of Tarpon Springs, clearly presented many genuine issues of material facts which if established would entitle the respondent to an order quashing the writ. It is our view that the lower court erred in entering the judgment appealed from.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

TERRELL, THOMAS, HOBSON, ROBERTS and THORNAL, JJ., and PRUNTY, Associate Justice, concur.
Case: 13-11198-BAH Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/07/13 Desc: Main Document Page 1 of 5
Case: 13-11198-BAH Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/07/13 Desc: Main Document Page 2 of 5
Case: 13-11198-BAH Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/07/13 Desc: Main Document Page 3 of 5
Case: 13-11198-BAH Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/07/13 Desc: Main Document Page 4 of 5
Case: 13-11198-BAH Doc #: 27 Filed: 10/07/13 Desc: Main Document Page 5 of 5
UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

David Burns Case No. 06-cv-131-PB 

v. 

Warden, New Hampshire State Prison 

O R D E R 

The petitioner has failed to respond to respondent’s motion 

for summary judgment despite having received several extensions. 

Accepting the facts properly pleaded in support of the motion as 

true, I determine that respondent is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. The motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 33) is 

granted. 

Because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the court 

declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

' 2253(c)(2); Rule 11, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under 

Section 2254; First Cir. LR 22.0. 

 

Case 1:06-cv-00131-PB Document 41 Filed 07/20/11 Page 1 of 2
2 

SO ORDERED. 

 /s/Paul Barbadoro 

 Paul Barbadoro 

 United States District Judge 

July 20, 2011 

cc: David Burns, pro se 

 Elizabeth Woodcock, Esq. 

Case 1:06-cv-00131-PB Document 41 Filed 07/20/11 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1273

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to eliminate the chilling

effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State

and local officials that results from the threat that potential litigants

may seek damages and attorney’s fees.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 2001

Mr. HOSTETTLER (for himself, Mr. WICKER, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr.

BLUNT, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. SOUDER,

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. RILEY, Mr. ISSA,

Mr. PITTS, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. TERRY, Mr. AKIN, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. SHOWS, Mr. BAKER,

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, and Mr. SMITH of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to

eliminate the chilling effect on the constitutionally protected expression of religion by State and local officials

that results from the threat that potential litigants may

seek damages and attorney’s fees.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1273 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Expression of

3 Religion Act of 2001’’.

4 SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN LAWSUITS AGAINST

5 STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS.

6 (a) CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS.—

7 Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States

8 (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended—

9 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before the first sentence;

10 and

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

12 ‘‘(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this

13 section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a

14 prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment

15 of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.’’.

16 (b) ATTORNEYS FEES.—Section 722(b) of the Re17 vised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1988(b))

18 is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘However,

19 no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with re20 spect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nine21 teen hundred and seventy nine.’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          20,444
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,144
<ALLOWANCES>                                       295
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,253
<PP&E>                                           7,007
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,879
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,052
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,655
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (302)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    770
<INCOME-TAX>                                       277
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>