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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 161

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the $500,000

exclusion of gain on the sale of a principal residence shall apply to

certain sales by a surviving spouse.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mrs. ROUKEMA (for herself, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. KOLBE, Ms.

MCCARTHY of Missouri, Mr. KING, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. BARR of Georgia,

Mrs. KELLY, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. TANCREDO, and Mr.

HORN) 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 provide

that the $500,000 exclusion of gain on the sale of a

principal residence shall apply to certain sales by a surviving spouse.

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 ‘‘Surviving Spouse Fair5 ness Act of 2000’’.
2

•HR 161 IH

1 SEC. 2. $500,000 EXCLUSION OF GAIN ON SALE OF PRIN2 CIPAL RESIDENCE BY SURVIVING SPOUSE.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 121(d)

4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to property

5 of deceased spouse) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(2) PROPERTY OF DECEASED SPOUSE.—For

7 purposes of this section, in the case of an unmarried

8 individual whose spouse is deceased on the date of

9 the sale or exchange of property—

10 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The period such un11 married individual owned and used such prop12 erty shall include the period such deceased

13 spouse owned and used such property before

14 death.

15 ‘‘(B) $500,000 EXCLUSION IN CERTAIN

16 CASES.—At the election of such an unmarried

17 individual with respect to any property, sub18 section (b)(1) shall be applied by substituting

19 ‘$500,000’ for ‘$250,000’ if—

20 ‘‘(i) such individual is an unmarried

21 individual at all times after the date of

22 death of such deceased spouse and before

23 the date of the sale or exchange, and

24 ‘‘(ii) the requirements of clauses (i),

25 (ii), and (iii) of subsection (b)(2)(A) would

26 have been met if such sale or exchange oc-
3

•HR 161 IH

1 curred on such date of death (whether or

2 not such requirements were in effect as of

3 such date of death).

4 In the case of property with respect to which an

5 election under this subparagraph is in effect,

6 the basis of such property in the hands of such

7 unmarried individual shall be determined with8 out regard to section 1014.

9 ‘‘(C) ELECTION.—The election under sub10 paragraph (B) shall be made not later than the

11 due date (including extensions) for the return

12 of tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable

13 year in which the sale occurred. Such an elec14 tion, once made, shall take effect as of such

15 date of death and may not be revoked without

16 the consent of the Secretary.’’

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

18 this section shall take effect as if included in the amend19 ments made by section 312 of the Taxpayer Relief Act

20 of 1997.

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

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of  2002, 18 U.S.C. section 1350, and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K
(the  "Form  10-K")  for  the period ended June 30, 2002 of Pizza Inn, Inc. (the
"Issuer").

I, Shawn M. Preator, the Principal Accounting Officer of the Issuer certify that
to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

1.     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m  or  78o(d)); and

2.     The  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of operations of the Company.


            September 27, 2002                              /s/ Shawn M. Preator
                                                            --------------------
                                                                Shawn M. Preator
                                                       Vice President of Finance
                                                  (Principal Accounting Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02274-PAB-BNB

KFORCE INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

EVERETT COSTA,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction

[Docket No. 18] and defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

[Docket No. 21]. 

The Local Rules of this District state that a court “will not consider any motion . . .

unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before filing the motion, has

conferred or made reasonable, good-faith efforts to confer with opposing counsel or a

pro se party to resolve the disputed matter.” D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(A). In its motion,

plaintiff certifies that it “contacted Defendant’s counsel to notify Defendant that [plaintiff]

would seek the relief sought in this Motion.” Docket No. 18 at 2. It further stated that,

as of the filing of the motion, it “had not been able to ascertain Defendant’s position with

regard to this Motion.” Id. The Court cannot glean from this certification what, if any,

“specific efforts to comply with th[e] rule” were taken by plaintiff. D.C.COLO.LCivR

7.1(A). 

Case 1:11-cv-02274-PAB-BNB Document 24 Filed 11/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

In his motion, defendant contends that plaintiff has failed to adequately allege

facts in support of this Court’s exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. Absent an

assurance that jurisdiction exists, a court may not proceed in a case. See Cunningham

v. BHP Petroleum Great Britain PLC, 427 F.3d 1238, 1245 (10th Cir. 2005). 

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that the Court will not consider plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

injunction [Docket No. 18] until such time as plaintiff complies with D.C.COLO.LCivR

7.1(A) and has satisfied the Court that it may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over

this case. 

DATED November 7, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02274-PAB-BNB Document 24 Filed 11/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Second Amendment to a Lease Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.34 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO A LEASE AGREEMENT 
 BETWEEN DOMINO’S FARMS OFFICE PARK, L.L.C. 
 (LANDLORD) AND DOMINO’S PIZZA, L.L.C.
(TENANT) 
  
 THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO A LEASE AGREEMENT is
made May 5, 2004 and is effective as of the 21st day of December, 2003, by and between DOMINO’S FARMS OFFICE PARK, L.L.C., a Michigan Limited Liability Company, f/k/a Domino’s Farms Office Park Limited Partnership (Landlord) and
DOMINO’S PIZZA, L.L.C. (Tenant). 
  
 WHEREAS, Landlord
entered into a Lease Agreement for a portion of the office building known as Domino’s Farms Prairie House located at 30 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 with Domino’s Pizza, Inc., whose successor in interest is
Domino’s Pizza, L.L.C. (Tenant) for a term of five (5) years commencing as of December 21, 1998; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant extended the term of the lease, included additional space as a part of the Premises, and incorporated additional provisions
via a FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE dated August 8, 2002; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant desire to modify and clarify the Premises to which said lease shall apply; 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, Landlord and Tenant agree to amend the Lease by replacing Section B (Premises) of the FIRST AMENDED STANDARD LEASE SUMMARY with the
following: 
  
 Office Space, Lab Space and Conference Center
Square Footage: 200,405 rentable square feet, based upon 174,265 usable square feet with a 15% common area factor. 
  
 Warehouse Square Footage: 5,019 square feet. 
  
 Location:     All of the highlighted space as shown on the attached Rider A. 
  
 IT IS FURTHER AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD that Tenant will be temporarily leasing
various suites until renovations to the Premises have been completed. Tenant will pay rent for any and all “swing” space at a rate of $25.95 per square foot during the first year of the lease term. Rent for any and all “swing”
space extending beyond Year 1 of the extension shall be charged at a rate which corresponds to and equals the rate established for each subsequent year of the lease term. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto executed this SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT as of the day and year first
above written. 
  

 1 









									
	 	 	 	 	 LANDLORD:
 DOMINO’S FARMS OFFICE
 PARK, L.L.C.
 (a Michigan limited liability company)

					
	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 
	 	 	
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	  
 Its:
	 	 Paul R. Roney
 Manager

			
	 	 	 	 	 TENANT:
 DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC
 (a Michigan limited liability
company)

					
	 	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 
	 	 	
	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	Name:	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Its:	 	 

  

 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02360-RPM-KMT

ANTOINETTE SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

THOMAS, THOMAS, WICHTERMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

____________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice [41] filed on August 24, 2012, it is

ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear their own

attorney’s fees and costs.

DATED: August 27th, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

_________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02360-RPM-KMT Document 42 Filed 08/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01979-LTB

SHANE E. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOC INTAKE OFFICER JANE DOE,

DOC INTAKE OFFICER JOHN DOE,

DOC PROPERTY SERGEANT S. MARTZ, and

DOC LAUNDRY SUPERVISOR LIEUTENANT CORDOVA,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY SENIOR JUDGE LEWIS T. BABCOCK

Plaintiff’s Motion for Certification of the Record (Dkt. # 8) and Request for Legal

Representation (Dkt. #9), both filed on filed October 6, 2011, are DENIED AS MOOT.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an Order on October 18, 2011 dismissing

Mr. Johnson’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was untimely.

(See Dkt. #14).

Dated: October 19, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-01979-LTB Document 15 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
---

All files contain data as of the current quarter. Files in comma-separated variable 
(CSV) format contain all available historical data.

|Section B
Selected Statistics from the Quarterly Reports of Condition of Commercial Banks   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                            
|
|B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks                                              
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.2. Delinquent Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                 
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks         
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks                     
|ASCII (5 KB)                                                                                
|B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks             
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            
|
|B.6. Distribution of Agricultural Banks by Share of Their Total Loans that are Nonperforming
|ASCII (4 KB)                                                                                
|B.7. Selected Measures of Financial Performance of Agricultural and Other Small Banks       
|ASCII (6 KB)                                                                                
|B.8. Average Loan-Deposit Ratios at Agricultural Banks in Selected Federal Reserve Districts
|ASCII (10 KB)                                                                               
|B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures                                                   
|ASCII (2 KB)                                                                                
|                                                                                            

Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: December 18, 2009
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 991 

Recognizing the exceptional sacrifice of the 69th Infantry Regiment, known 

as the Fighting 69th, in support of the Global War on Terror. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

Mr. ISRAEL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the exceptional sacrifice of the 69th Infantry 

Regiment, known as the Fighting 69th, in support of 

the Global War on Terror. 

Whereas the 69th Infantry Regiment, or the Fighting 69th, 

with citizen-soldiers from Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, 

the Bronx, Staten Island, and Long Island, has faithfully 

answered America’s call to arms since its formation in 

1851; 

Whereas the Fighting 69th was one of the first units to assist in the recovery effort at the World Trade Center in 

New York following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack, where they lost a comrade, a firefighter; 

Whereas the 69th Infantry Regiment, while deployed to Iraq 

as ‘‘Task Force Wolfhound’’, its first overseas combat 

since World War II, fought to defend the city of Al Taji 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 991 IH 

against al-Qaeda terrorists, protected Iraq’s first free 

elections, and secured the infamous ‘‘Route Irish’’, the 

most dangerous road in Baghdad; 

Whereas 19 members of the Fighting 69th were killed in action and over 78 were wounded in Operation Wolfhound; 

and 

Whereas the Fighting 69th has now served the Nation in 5 

wars and over 20 campaigns, and Congress has awarded 

6 members with the Congressional Medal of Honor: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the 69th Infantry Regiment, or 

3 the Fighting 69th, as one of the great regiments in 

4 American military history; 

5 (2) recognizes that America owes a tremendous 

6 debt for the exceptional service, patriotism, and fi7 delity of the soldiers of the Fighting 69th; 

8 (3) recognizes that the Fighting 69th has con9 tinually participated in the Global War on Terror 

10 since the attack on September 11, 2001; and 

11 (4) acknowledges that as the 69th Infantry 

12 Regiment deploys to Afghanistan to fight in the cen13 tral front in the Global War on Terror, that the 

14 proud traditions of the regiment will be respected 

15 and that the sacrifices of one of America’s most sto16 ried combat units will not go unnoticed. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
#### Westcott, Appellant, *v.*Stevenson et al.

*12April 13,1938:

Argued March 8,1938.

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

Before Swoyer, P. J. *14Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Bald-

*12
      *I. B. Rutherford,*of *Rutherford & Rutherford,*for appellant.

*Lester R. Male,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Rhodes, J.,

This is an appeal by plaintiff from the refusal of the court below to take off a compulsory nonsuit entered in an action of assumpsit by plaintiff against the executors of the last will and testament of Alice Cole, deceased. If plaintiff established a prima facie case, the nonsuit must be set aside. In considering plaintiff’s evidence we must assume it to be true, and give plaintiff the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible therefrom, and resolve all doubts' in favor of a trial. *Allen*
      *13
      *v. Mitten Bank Securities Corporation,*129 Pa. Superior Ct. 341, 195 A. 459; *Donze et al. v. Devlin,*329 Pa. 1, 195 A. 882.

Plaintiff’s action was instituted to recover for work and labor performed for deceased in the construction of a barn on her farm. The work was done by plaintiff between March, 1931, and April, 1933. The foundation and the superstructure were built by plaintiff, with exception of certain work which was performed by others. The barn was constructed out of second-hand lumber which was obtained from another building and transported by plaintiff. Deceased lived more than a year after the erection of the barn by plaintiff, and repeatedly stated that she was going to “make it right” with him. Deceased also stated that, plaintiff having built the barn, she was going to pay him; that she was waiting for the money she had in a closed bank to settle things with plaintiff.

Although there was testimony that the labor cost for such a barn as that erected by plaintiff was approximately $300, the evidence did not disclose the value of the labor performed by others.

There was offered and admitted in evidence copy of the last will and testament of Alice Cole, paragraph 5 of which was as follows: “Fifth: I give and bequeath to James Westcott, the sum of One Hundred (100) Dollars, in payment of labor building barn.” The will was executed on April 25,1934. Deceased died on May 28, 1934.

Plaintiff established a prima facie case, and the non-suit was improper. Plaintiff erected the barn, with certain additional assistance; deceased recognized plaintiff as the builder of the barn; and deceased acknowledged her indebtedness to him, at least to the extent of $100 in payment of his labor. The relationship of debtor and creditor was established between the parties, and, for the services shown to have been performed, *14plaintiff was entitled to recover no less than the amount that deceased directed in her will that plaintiff should receive “in payment of labor building barn.”

The photographs which plaintiff offered in evidence were properly excluded by the trial judge on the state of the record at the time they were offered.

The first and third assignments of error are sustained. Judgment is reversed with a venire.

*15rige, Stadteeld, Parker and Rhodes, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Isramco, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Haim Tsuff, Chief Executive and Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Company's Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


OCTOBER 17, 2006                            /S/ HAIM TSUFF
                                         ---------------------------------
                                         HAIM TSUFF
                                         CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                         (AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING
                                         OFFICER)


A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO
ISRAMCO, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY ISRAMCO, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
II

Calendar No. 245

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2061

[Report No. 107–102]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 21, 2001

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

NOVEMBER 29, 2001

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment

AN ACT

To amend the charter of Southeastern University of the

District of Columbia.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO CHARTER OF SOUTH4 EASTERN UNIVERSITY REGARDING BOARD

5 OF TRUSTEES.

6 Section 3 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act for the relief

7 of the Southeastern University of the Young Men’s Chris8 tian Association of the District of Columbia’’, approved

9 August 19, 1937 (50 Stat. 697), as amended by section
2

•HR 2061 RS

1 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the charter of

2 Southeastern University of the District of Columbia’’, ap3 proved October 10, 1966 (80 Stat. 883), is amended—

4 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘, one5 third of whom’’ and all that follows and inserting a

6 period; and

7 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘elected

8 for a term’’ and inserting ‘‘elected by the board for

9 a term’’.

10 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CURRENT TRUSTEES.

11 The amendment made by section 1 shall not affect

12 the term of office of any individual serving on the Board

13 of Trustees of Southeastern University as of the date of

14 the enactment of this Act.

Calendar No. 245

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2061

[Report No. 107–102]

AN ACT

To amend the charter of Southeastern University of

the District of Columbia.

NOVEMBER 29, 2001

Reported without amendment
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marie Miller et al.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-293-JL

Scott Roberge

 O R D E R

The emergency motion (doc. #4 - treated by the court as a

motion for a temporary injunctive relief) filed by plaintiffs

Marie Miller and Dorothy Lafortune is DENIED.

Assuming (without deciding) that the plaintiffs have

standing to file the motion on behalf of William Miller and John

Miller, they have not made the required four-part showing

necessary to obtain preliminary injunctive relief, as they have

demonstrated neither a likelihood of success on the merits nor

irreparable harm. See Naser Jewelers, Inc. v. City of Concord,

513 F.3d 27, 32 (1st Cir. 2008).

Further, the injunctive relief requested by the plaintiffs -–

an order that John and William Miller be placed in the “witness

protection program” administered by the United States Marshal’s

Service, or a modification in William Miller’s state court bail

conditions allowing him to reside at a Veterans Administration

Hospital –- are not within the authority of the court. This would

Case 1:08-cv-00293-JL Document 7 Filed 08/05/08 Page 1 of 2
2

be true even if the plaintiffs had established entitlement to

preliminary injunctive relief.

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: August 5, 2008

cc: Marie Miller, pro se

 Dorothy Lafortune, pro se

Barbara Batson, pro se

Carl Weston, pro se

John A. Curran, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00293-JL Document 7 Filed 08/05/08 Page 2 of 2