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

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 familyowned business interests.

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 ‘‘Family-Owned Busi5 ness Survival Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1210 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON ESTATE TAX DEDUC2 TION FOR FAMILY-OWNED BUSINESS INTER3 ESTS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 2057 of

5 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to family6 owned business interests) is amended to read as follows:

7 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—For purposes of

8 the tax imposed by section 2001, in the case of an estate

9 of a decedent to which this section applies, the value of

10 the taxable estate shall be determined by deducting from

11 the value of the gross estate the adjusted value of the

12 qualified family-owned business interests of the decedent

13 which are described in subsection (b)(2).’’

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

15 subsection (a) shall apply to estates of decedents dying

16 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6210

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KENNETH THOMAS, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-94-514-A)

Submitted: April 21, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Thomas, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although Appellant's notice of appeal was filed beyond the

ten-day appeal period set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(b), the record

supports a finding of excusable neglect. Accordingly, we decline to

remand to the district court, and we have considered the appeal on

the merits. See United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353-54 (4th

Cir. 1985); see generally United States v. Petty, 82 F.3d 809, 810

(8th Cir. 1996).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his 18

U.S.C. § 3582 (1994) motion for a downward departure based on his

efforts toward rehabilitation.* 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 United States

v. Thomas, No. CR-94-514-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 6, 1998). 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
#### Louis RAPPAPORT v. UNITED STATES of America.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 11, 1938.

George S. Fitzgerald, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

John *C.*Lehr, U. S. Atty., ,of Detroit, Mich., for the United States.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the appeal in this cause be, and the same is, dismissed for want of prosecution, the costs to be charged against the government as constructive earnings.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Herman Alfredo Lopez v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00358

- CR

Trial court case number: 16

- CR

- 2498

Trial court: 212th District Court of Galveston County

On December 10, 2019, this Court struck the opening brief filed by appellant’s appointed

counsel and ordered the brief to be re

- filed by December 30, 2019. On December 27, 2019, appointed counsel filed a motion requesting an additiona l sixty days to re

- file an opening brief.

The motion is denied

. Unless this Court receives appellant’s brief within seven days of the date of this order, we will once again abate the case and order the trial court to conduct a hearing pursuant to Texas Rul e of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Sarah Beth Landau Acting individually

Date: December 30, 2019
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1196

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow State and local

taxes to be deducted in computing the alternative minimum tax.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 22, 2001

Mr. RANGEL 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 State

and local taxes to be deducted in computing the alternative minimum tax.

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 STATE AND LOCAL TAXES AL4 LOWED IN COMPUTING ALTERNATIVE MIN5 IMUM TAX.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The last sentence of section

7 56(b)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relat8 ing to limitations on deductions) is amended by inserting

9 before the period ‘‘and shall not apply to State and local

10 taxes’’.
2

•HR 1196 IH

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

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

3 December 31, 2000.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRISTINE R. DUNKOWSKI,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 401 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1067

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain steam or other vapor generating

boilers used in nuclear facilities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 15, 2001

Mr. COLLINS (for himself and Mr. LEWIS of Georgia) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain steam or other

vapor generating boilers used in nuclear facilities.

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 ‘‘Generator Tariff Sus5 pension Act’’.
2

•HR 1067 IH

1 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN STEAM OR

2 OTHER VAPOR GENERATING BOILERS USED

3 IN NUCLEAR FACILITIES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.84.02 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended

6 to read as follows:

‘‘ 9902.84.02 Watertube boilers

with a steam production exceeding

45 t per hour,

for use in nuclear

facilities (provided for in subheading

8402.11.00) ....... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2005 ’’.

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered,

10 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on

11 or after the 15th day after the date of the enact12 ment of this Act.

13 (2) APPLICATION TO LIQUIDATIONS OR RELIQ14 UIDATIONS.—Notwithstanding section 514 of the

15 Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law and

16 subject to paragraph (3), any article described in

17 heading 9902.84.02 of the Harmonized Tariff

18 Schedule of the United States that was entered, or

19 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption—

20 (A) on or after January 1, 2000, and
3

•HR 1067 IH

1 (B) before the date that is 15 days after

2 the date of the enactment of this Act,

3 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if such heading

4 9902.84.02, as amended by subsection (a), applied

5 to such entry or withdrawal, and the Secretary of

6 the Treasury shall refund any excess duty paid with

7 respect to such entry.

8 (3) REQUESTS.—Liquidation or reliquidation

9 may be made under paragraph (2) with respect to

10 any entry only if a request therefor is filed with the

11 Customs Service, within 180 days after the date of

12 the enactment of this Act, that contains sufficient

13 information to enable the Customs Service—

14 (A) to locate the entry; or

15 (B) to reconstruct the entry if it cannot be

16 located.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William J. Carey

v. Civil No. 05-cv-293-JD

Steven Olson

and Michael Boufford

O R D E R

William J. Carey, proceeding pro se, alleged claims against

the Manchester Police Department and three police officers.

Carey’s claims arose from the circumstances surrounding his

arrest and prosecution on charges of stalking and attempting to

violate a stalking order. Following preliminary review under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A, the magistrate judge reported that Carey alleged

sufficient facts as to only Fourth Amendment malicious

prosecution claims against Olson and Boufford, recommended that

only those defendants be served, and dismissed all other claims

and the claims against Officer Peter Bartlett. The report and

recommendation was approved by the court. 

After reviewing the pleadings and the record for purposes of

the defendants’ pending motion for judgment on the pleadings,

however, it appears that Carey also alleged sufficient facts to

state a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim as to

Officer Peter Bartlett. Therefore, Bartlett should be served as

a third defendant in this case.

Case 1:05-cv-00293-JD Document 18 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Accordingly, the complaint shall be served on Officer Peter

Bartlett. The Clerk’s Office is instructed to prepare the

summons for that defendant and deliver to the United States

Marshal for the District of New Hampshire (“U.S. Marshal’s

Office”) the summons and copies of the complaint and all other

filings made in this case, including this order. Upon receipt of

the necessary documentation, the U.S. Marshal’s Office shall

effect service upon the defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). 

The defendant shall answer or otherwise plead within twenty

days of acceptance of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall also be served directly

on Officer Peter Bartlett by delivering or mailing the materials

to him or his attorney, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b).

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

April 13, 2006

cc: William J. Carey, pro se

Robert J. Meagher, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00293-JD Document 18 Filed 04/13/06 Page 2 of 2
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Covance Inc. ("Covance") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christopher A. Kuebler, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

Date:
July 23, 2004

/s/CHRISTOPHER A. KUEBLERChristopher A. Kuebler
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
SCPW-14-000859 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
MICHAEL G.M. OSTENDORP, Petitioner,

vs. THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, ACTING CHIEF DISCIPLINARY

COUNSEL CHARLENE M. NORRIS, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION (By : Reck ten wal d, C.J ., Nak ayama, Mc Ken na, Po lla ck, an d W ils on, JJ .)

Upon consideration of the May 30, 2014 petition for a writ of prohibition submitted by Petitioner attorney Michael G.M. Ostendorp, this court notes the passage of time between the initial complaints and the present but, upon a review of the record, anticipates their timely resolution, and concludes nothing in the petition or the attached exhibits supports the conclusion that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has violated a duty owed this court, or abused the discretion delegated to it by this court to investigate the allegations of misconduct lodged against the Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-14-0000859 13-JUN-2014 01:39 PM2

Petitioner. See Breiner v. Sunderland , 112 Haw. 60, 64-65, 143 P.3d 1262, 1266-67 (2006) ; In re Disciplinary Bd. of the Hawai # i Supreme Court , 91 Hawai # i 363, 368-71, 984 P.2d 688, 693-96 (1999); Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd. of the Hawai # i Supreme Court , 91 Hawai # i 51, 57, 979 P.2d 1077, 1083 (1999). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of prohibition is denied, without prejudice to the Petitioner, in his discretion, filing a protective order with the appropriate party, pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Rules of the Disciplinary Board with regards to his medical records.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 13, 2014. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1066 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1066

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to direct the Secretary 
of the Interior to cease mineral leasing activity on submerged land of 
 the Outer Continental Shelf that is adjacent to a coastal State that 
  has declared a moratorium on such activity, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2001

    Mrs. Capps (for herself, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Condit, Mr. Thompson of 
  California, Mr. Farr of California, Mrs. Tauscher, and Mr. Filner) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to direct the Secretary 
of the Interior to cease mineral leasing activity on submerged land of 
 the Outer Continental Shelf that is adjacent to a coastal State that 
  has declared a moratorium on such activity, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Coastal States Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. STATE MORATORIA ON OFFSHORE MINERAL LEASING.

    Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(p) State Moratoria.--When there is in effect with respect to 
lands beneath navigable waters of a coastal State a moratorium on oil, 
gas, or other mineral exploration, development, or production 
activities established by statute or by order of the Governor, the 
Secretary shall not issue a lease for the exploration, development, or 
production of minerals on submerged lands of the Outer Continental 
Shelf that are seaward of or adjacent to those lands.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Certifications

I, Eric Blachno, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Broadband, Inc.;

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

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

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

     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions abut the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's recent
     fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

      a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
     summarize, and report financial information; and

      b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting.

Date April 11, 2005


/s/ Eric Blachno
Eric Blachno
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                              5,835
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      29,517
<ALLOWANCES>                        3,585
<INVENTORY>                         8,510
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   59,942
<PP&E>                            412,672
<DEPRECIATION>                    207,570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    284,324
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              41,659
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                              189
<OTHER-SE>                        115,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      115,308
<SALES>                             7,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   43,154
<CGS>                               5,232
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      24,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      128
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  2,294
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     3,635
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,163
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 2,472
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        2,472
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.13
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, William C. Adair, Jr., hereby
certify that the Quarterly Report of Direct General Corporation on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Direct
General Corporation.

  August 9, 2005                     By: /s/ William C. Adair, Jr.
-----------------                        ---------------------------------------
      Date                                             (Signature)
                                     Name: William C. Adair, Jr.
                                     Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
[No. 34027.

Department One.

September 12, 1957.]

#### Leslie U. Cuerier *et al., Respondents,*v. Radio Station KPUG *et al., Appellants.**1*

*Livesey, Kingsbury & Livesey,*for appellants.

*Newman & Newman*and *Sam Peach,*for respondents.

1

Reported in 314 P. (2d) 927.

Per Curiam.

This is an action for damages for malicious prosecution brought by Cuerier and his wife against defendant radio station, its manager, and his wife.

Mr. and Mrs. Cuerier were free-lance specialty salesmen of radio advertising. They prepared and promoted what is known in the trade as “package programs.” This involved arranging for radio time and a radio announcer with a certain station, contacting prospective advertising sponsors for the package programs. Mrs. Cuerier wrote the scripts; Mr. Cuerier sold the programs to advertising sponsors. The proceeds from the program sales were split between the Cueriers and the particular station involved.

Mr. Cuerier entered into a written contract with defendant Belling-ham radio station through its manager, Mr. Hamstreet. Weekly settlement of accounts was to be made on the basis of fifty per cent to the radio station and fifty per cent to Cuerier.

The Cueriers left Bellingham to work with a radio station in Moses Lake, Washington. At the time they left, settlement had not been made with the Bellingham radio station as to three advertising sponsors who had paid the Cueriers in cash. There is evidence that Mr. Cuerier had attempted to make such settlement, but that he had been unable to locate Mr. Hamstreet.

Three days later, Mr. Cuerier was arrested in Moses Lake and charged with grand larceny. He spent twenty-one days in jail before being released on bail. Several months later, the charges were dropped because of insufficient evidence to prosecute.

Thereafter, this action was brought charging that defendants did maliciously and without probable cause bring about the arrest and prosecution of Mr. Cuerier. Upon trial by jury, plaintiffs obtained a verdict awarding damages in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars. Defendants appealed.

We have considered all of appellants’ assignments of error. We find that there is substantial evidence in the record to sustain the jury’s verdict as to liability and as to the damages awarded to the respondents. The facts in the record called to our attention in this case and appellants’ assignments of error raise no question of law that has not previ*890ously been decided by this court in other malicious prosecution cases. See *Peasley v. Puget Sound Tug & Barge Co.*(1942), 13 Wn. (2d) 485, 125 P. (2d) 681, and cases cited therein.

The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

October 24, 1957. Petition for rehearing denied.