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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1132 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Indian tribes to 

receive charitable contributions of apparently wholesome food. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 17, 2007 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow Indian 

tribes to receive charitable contributions of apparently 

wholesome food. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF APPAR4 ENTLY WHOLESOME FOOD TO INDIAN 

5 TRIBES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for con8 tributions of inventory and other property) is amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating subparagraph (E) as sub10 paragraph (F); and 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 1132 IS

1 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the fol2 lowing new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(E) SPECIAL RULE FOR INDIAN

4 TRIBES.— 

5 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of 

6 this paragraph, an Indian tribe (as defined 

7 in section 7871(c)(3)(E)(ii)) shall be treat8 ed as an organization eligible to be a donee 

9 under subparagraph (A) with respect to 

10 apparently wholesome food (as defined in 

11 section 22(b)(2) of the Bill Emerson Good 

12 Samaritan Food Donation Act (42 U.S.C. 

13 1791(b)(2)) (as in effect on the date of the 

14 enactment of this subparagraph)) only. 

15 ‘‘(ii) USE OF PROPERTY.—For pur16 poses of subparagraph (A)(i), if the use of 

17 the apparently wholesome food donated is 

18 related to the exercise of an essential gov19 ernmental function of the Indian tribal 

20 government (within the meaning of section 

21 7871), such use shall be treated as related 

22 to the purpose or function constituting the 

23 basis for the organization’s exemption.’’. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•S 1132 IS

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

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2007. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
#### Joel M. Aurnou v Leon J. Greenspan et al.

Motion and cross motion granted only insofar as to amend the memorandum decision (161 AD2d 438) filed on May 17, 1990 by changing the last sentence of the second paragraph thereof to read as follows: "At the same time, prior to plaintiff’s withdrawal, the firm agreed to receive its $200,000 contingency fee at the rate of $50,000 per year over a four-year period.” It is further ordered that last two sentences of first paragraph on third page of aforesaid memorandum decision *(supra,*at 439) are amended to read as follows: "With a one-third overhead reduction, it would appear to be $422. Thus, the $8,138 award based on contingency fees should be reduced to $422.” Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
#### DUVAL v. DUVAL.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
Exhibit 99.32

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

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (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 BCE Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that:

the annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 of the Company (the Form 40-F) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 40-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 9, 2016
			(signed) George A. CopeGeorge A. Cope
President and Chief Executive Officer
BCE Inc.Date: March 9, 2016
			(signed) Glen LeBlancGlenLeBlanc
Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
BCE Inc.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 on Form 10-QSBof World Heart Corporation (the “Corporation”) for the quarter ended June 30,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, Jal S. Jassawalla, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Corporation as of June 30, 2006.
| Dated: August 11, 2006 |   | /s/ * Jal S. Jassawalla                                                                  |
|------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Jal S. Jassawalla, President and  Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer) |

----

*******                   **A signedoriginal of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided tothe Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
1This morning, prior to the hearing, O’Neil filed a “Motion

for Injunctive Relief and for Punitive Damages” (document no.

12). While I recommend dismissal of the request for preliminary

injunctive relief, this Report and Recommendation does not

pertain to O’Neil’s request for punitive damages.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jeffrey C. O’Neil, Sr.

v. Civil No. 08-cv-396-SM

James O’Mara, Superintendent,

Hillsborough County House of

Corrections

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The parties appeared today for a scheduled hearing on

plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive relief (document

nos. 1 & 12)1. The parties agreed, and stated on the record,

that O’Neil is now receiving all of his mental health medication,

and has been since February 26, 2009. Further, the defendant

assures the Court that it will continue to monitor O’Neil’s

mental health status and medication and insure that he is being

provided with appropriate mental health treatment by qualified

medical and mental health professionals. Accordingly, I find

that the motion for a preliminary injunction is moot and should

Case 1:08-cv-00396-SM Document 14 Filed 03/03/09 Page 1 of 2
2

be denied without prejudice, subject to being renewed should

O’Neil be again deprived of appropriate mental health treatment

and medication.

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992);

United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 3, 2009 

cc: Jeffrey C. O’Neil, Sr.

John Curran, Esq.

Carolyn Kirby, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00396-SM Document 14 Filed 03/03/09 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00355-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN PHILLIP GALLEGOS,

Defendant.

 

ORDER EXONERATING BOND

This criminal action has proceeded to sentencing and a final judgment and conviction, and

the defendant was remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal at sentencing, or has selfsurrendered to the designated facility, as confirmed by the United States Bureau of Prisons. As a

result, all the conditions of an appearance bond imposed by the court as a pretrial matter to secure

the defendant’s release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c), have been satisfied. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the bond in this case is hereby exonerated and the surety or sureties, if

applicable, are released. It is further 

ORDERED that the bail funds or property deposited into the registry of the court shall

hereby be released by the clerk of the court, or a designated deputy, to the surety or the defendant. 

DATED this 27th day of January, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

Chief United States District Judge

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 362 filed 01/27/14 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 19, 2021

No. 04-21-00212-CV

Earl HARPER,

Appellant

v.

CREDITO REAL BUSINESS CAPITAL,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CI23243

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The

appellant's brief is due on or before July 21, 2021.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of July, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Dismiss and Opinion Filed August 23, 2013 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-00581-CR No. 05-13-00583-CR WHITFIELD DAVIS EDWARDS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-17106-V, F10-17107-V 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O’Neill, Francis, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice Francis Whitfield Davis Edwards pleaded guilty to tw o offenses of tampering with government records. Following plea agreements in each, the trial court deferred adjudicating appellant’s guilt and placed him on community supervision fo r two years. The court also assessed a $1,200
fine in cause no. 05-13-00581-CR. Punishment was assessed in open court on February 19, 2013, and the trial court certified that appellant wa s appealing the rulings on pretrial motions. Appellant filed motions for new trial on February 21, 2013 and notices of appeal on April 24, 2013. We conclude we lack ju risdiction over the appeals. A motion for new trial is not a remedy availa ble to a defendant wh o receives deferred adjudication. See Donovan v. State , 68 S.W.3d 633, 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Thus, a motion for new trial is ineffective to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal in a case in–2– which the defendant has rece ived deferred adjudication. Murray v. State , 89 S.W.3d 187, 188 (Tex. App.––Dallas 2002, pet. ref’d). In each case, the tria l court deferred adjudica ting appellant’s guilt on February 19, 2013. Therefore, appellant’s notices of appeal were du e within thirty days of that date, that is, by March 21, 2013. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)(1); Murray , 89 S.W.3d at 188. Appellant’s April 24, 2013 notices of appeal are unt imely, leaving us without juri sdiction over the appeals. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (per curiam). We dismiss the appeals fo r want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 130581F.U05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

WHITFIELD DAVIS EDWARDS, Appellant
No. 05-13-00581-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-17106-V. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. Justices O’Neill and Fillmore participating.
Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered August 23, 2013

/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

WHITFIELD DAVIS EDWARDS, Appellant
No. 05-13-00583-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-17107-V. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. Justices O’Neill and Fillmore participating.
Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered August 23, 2013

/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------


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


In connection with the accompanying Form 10-QSB of ZAP for the three months
ended March 31, 2004

Steven M. Schneider, Director and Chief Executive Officer of ZAP, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

(1)  such Form Type of ZAP for the three months ended March 31, 2004 fully
     complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the
     Securities Exchange of 1934; and

(2)  the information contained in such Form 10-QSB of ZAP for the three months
     ended March 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
     financial condition and results of operations of ZAP.






/s/ Steve  Schneider
-------------------------
Steve  Schneider
Director and Chief Executive Officer


May 14, 2004
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending November 25, 2006FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodLINCO Bancshares, Inc.                                                                                                  * 3A1LINCO Bancshares, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Centennial Bancshares, Inc., Elsberry, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire Bank of Lincoln County, Elsberry, Missouri.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not availableOLD NATIONAL BANCORP                                                                                                    * 3A3Old National Bancorp, Evansville, Indiana, to acquire 100 percent of St. Joseph Capital Corporation, Mishawaka, Indiana, and thereby indirectly acquire St. Joseph Capital Bank, Mishawaka, Indiana.Newspaper: 12/18/2006Federal Register: 12/18/2006
Exhibit
32.1




Certificate
Pursuant to Section 906


of
Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002


CERTIFICATION
OF CEO




In connection with the annual report on
Form 10-K of Bovie Medical Corporation. (the“Company”) for the period ended December 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the“Report”), the undersigned President and Chief
Executive Officer certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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




Date:
March 13, 2009




/s/Andrew
Makrides


Andrew
Makrides


President
and


Chief Executive
Officer
#### Kalmon-Dolgin Affiliates, Inc., Respondent, v Bush Terminal Associates, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered July 31, 1989, which, *inter alia,*after bench trial, awarded plaintiff judgment against defendant Bush Terminal Associates in the amount of $237,238 plus interest, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover a real estate brokerage commission from defendant Bush Terminal Associates in connection with a lease entered into by Bush Terminal Associates as landlord, with defendant Arthur Matney & Co., Inc. as tenant. In 1979, Matney decided to relocate its cosmetics manufacturing business and entered into negotiations with several real estate brokers. Plaintiff had entered into a written agreement with the A & S department store to act as its exclusive broker for the purpose of attempting to obtain a subtenant for building 24 at Bush Terminal. In September of 1982, representatives of Matney met with a principal of plaintiff regarding Matney’s proposed move and he showed the Matney individuals some of the buildings at the terminal. The negotiations for building 24 between Matney and plaintiff, on behalf of A & S, broke down in December of 1982.

When plaintiff’s representative first showed the space in Bush Terminal to Matney in September of 1982, however, it took the precaution of registering Matney with the general manager of the complex as a possible tenant in order to take advantage of the Bush policy of "broker protection” with respect to the complex. The policy entitled the first broker to bring a prospective tenant to the Bush complex to be considered the "broker of record” with respect to the tenant. The protection, however, was to only last for a period of six months.

After the negotiations between plaintiff and Matney deteriorated, Matney met with the general manager of the complex regarding space within the terminal. Through another real *791estate agent, Matney entered into a lease with Bush Terminal Associates for space in buildings 22, 23 and 26 in April of 1984. Bush Terminal Associates paid this real estate agent a brokerage fee and plaintiff sued.

The record fails to support the Supreme Court’s conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to a commission as “broker of record”. Instead, the record reveals that plaintiff never showed Matney the space it ultimately rented and never negotiated with Bush Terminal Associates with regard to the Matney tenancy. Moreover, the lease ultimately entered into by Bush Terminal and Matney was signed 18 months after plaintiff showed Matney a portion of the complex. Since the six-month period under the “broker of record” policy had expired, Bush Terminal Associates was free to deal with another broker in connection with the Matney tenancy.

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1338 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1338

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a two-
 year moratorium on certain Medicare physician payment reductions for 
                           imaging services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2007

Mr. Rockefeller (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Collins, Mrs. 
Murray, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Casey, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
   Menendez, Mr. Burr, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Graham, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. 
    Cardin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a two-
 year moratorium on certain Medicare physician payment reductions for 
                           imaging services.

    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 ``Access to Medicare Imaging Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. TWO-YEAR MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT 
              REDUCTIONS FOR IMAGING SERVICES.

    (a) Moratorium.--No payment adjustment shall be made under 
subsections (b)(4)(A) or (c)(2)(B)(v)(II) of section 1848 of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4) during the 2-year period beginning on 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) GAO Study and Report on Imaging Services Furnished Under the 
Medicare Program.--
            (1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
        shall conduct a comprehensive study on imaging services 
        furnished under the Medicare program.
            (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to 
        Congress and the Secretary of Health and Human Services a 
        report on the findings and conclusions of the study conducted 
        under paragraph (1) together with recommendations for such 
        legislation and administrative actions as the Comptroller 
        General considers appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7293

JOHN GARVIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 17-7377

JOHN GARVIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:17-cv-01605-DCN)

Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Dwayne Garvin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

John Dwayne Garvin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders remanding his state 

postconviction proceeding to the state court from which it was removed, denying his 

motion to amend the notice of removal, and denying reconsideration of the remand order. 

With certain exceptions not applicable here, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State 

court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has limited the scope of § 1447(d) to prohibiting 

appellate review of remand orders based on a defect in the removal procedure or lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 

(1996); see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012). Here, the remand was based on lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s 

orders. We therefore dismiss the appeals. Garvin’s motions to exceed the length 

limitations for his informal brief, for a petition in error from judgment order for a writ of 

error, and for alteration and amendment to petition for removal of state proceeding are 

denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED