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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5577]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO LIMIT AMENDMENTS, OFFER AN AMENDMENT, AND 
  EXPAND DEBATE TIME ON H.R. 1561, AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT OF 
                                  1995

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, No. 1, during 
the further consideration in the Committee of the Whole of the bill 
H.R. 1561, pursuant to House Resolution 155, that other than pro forma 
amendments for the purpose of debate and amendments en bloc described 
in section 2 of House Resolution 155, no further amendment to the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be in order except 
those printed in the amendments portion of the Congressional Record on 
or before May 24, 1995;
  No. 2, the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, with 
the concurrence of the ranking minority 
member,isauthorizedtoofferanamend-ment notwithstanding the 
preprinting-in-the-Congressional-Record requirement above or in House 
Resolution 155;
  No. 3, consideration of the bill for amendment under the 5-minute 
rule may continue on the same terms as during the initial 10-hour 
period under House Resolution 155 for an additional period of 6 hours 
and may extend beyond 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 25, 1995; and
  No. 4, no further amendment shall be in order after the additional 6-
hour period.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, what we need 
on this whole international relations legislation is some 
bipartisanship consistent with the history of this Congress in 
providing some bipartisan support for Presidents, regardless of party, 
in the conduct of our international relations.
  My concern is that what we have, instead, is a 352-page detailed bill 
micromanaging foreign policy. Mr. Speaker, I do not think 6 hours more 
of talk, if it is the kind of talk that we have had throughout the 
course of this debate so far, is going to get us any nearer a 
bipartisan foreign relations bill.
  It is obvious, since this bill was supposed to be crammed through 
yesterday, that the votes are not there for this kind of 
micromanagement.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, in view of that, I object to the request, 
because it has already been decided.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________
```
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 3854

_____________________________
K

ALVIN A LLISON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

. December 1, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
K ELSEY , M.K. T HOMAS , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Kalvin Allison, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1339 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1339

  To make residents of Puerto Rico eligible for the earned income tax 
                                credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2007

 Mr. Fortuno introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To make residents of Puerto Rico eligible for the earned income tax 
                                credit.

    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 ``Puerto Rico Economic Stimulus Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. PUERTO RICO RESIDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to earned income) is amended by inserting at the end the 
following new subsection:
    ``(n) Residents of Puerto Rico.--
            ``(1) In general.--In the case of residents of Puerto Rico, 
        this section shall be applied--
                    ``(A) by substituting `United States or Puerto 
                Rico' for `United States' in subsections 
                (c)(1)(A)(ii)(I) and (c)(3)(C),
                    ``(B) by substituting `nonresident alien individual 
                (other than a resident of Puerto Rico)' for 
                `nonresident alien individual' in subsection (c)(1)(D), 
                and
                    ``(C) by substituting `gross income (computed 
                without regard to section 933)' for `gross income' in 
                subsections (a)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(A)(i).
            ``(2) Phase-in of credit.--
                    ``(A) In general.--The credit allowable under this 
                section by reason of this subsection shall not exceed 
                the applicable percentage of the amount of credit which 
                would otherwise be allowable under this section 
                (without regard to this paragraph).
                    ``(B) Applicable percentage.--The applicable 
                percentage shall be determined as follows:

``In the case of any taxable year   The applicable percentage is--
        beginning in--
    2008..........................................                  20 
    2009..........................................                  40 
    2010..........................................                  60 
    2011..........................................                  80 
    2012 and thereafter...........................              100.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
#### Charles Warren STELLY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 86-2837

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 28, 1987.

Charles Warren Stelly, pro se.

Michael L. Paup, Chief Appellate Sec., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Roger M. Olsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., Mary C. Vance, Tax Div., Dept, of J, Dallas, Tex., James R. Gough, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellee.

*443Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Charles and Marlene Stelly are back.

In this action, destined to be known as *Stelly IV,*the Stellys challenge the disallowance of various adjustments and the assessment of a penalty by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in regard to their 1981 tax return on the same theories they have asserted in their previous appeals. *See Stelly v. Commissioner,*761 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir.) *(Stelly I), cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 149, 88 L.Ed.2d 123 (1985); *Stelly v. Commissioner,*804 F.2d 868 (5th Cir.1986) *(Stelly II); Stelly v. Commissioner,*804 F.2d 872 (5th Cir.1986) *(Stelly III).*The district court in this case also imposed sanctions of $2,418.50 pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.

For the same reasons expressed in our opinion in *Stelly II,*we affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to its rulings concerning the IRS. We also agree that the Stellys’ complaint violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and affirm the sanctions that the district court imposed. Furthermore, as in *Stelly I, II,*and *III,*we find the appeal in this case to be frivolous. Consequently, consistent with our actions in *Stelly II*and *III,*we impose a monetary sanction in this case of $2,000 on the Stellys jointly and direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any new filings by the Stellys for any tax related appeals until the sanctions imposed in this case and in *Stelly II*and *III*are paid and proof of satisfaction of all prior judgments is provided.1

AFFIRMED.

1

. In carrying out this direction, the Clerk will be guided here by our comments in note 2 of *Stelly II.*804 F.2d at 871 n. 2.

We also note that this appeal was filed on October 10, 1986, prior to the time that our decisions in *Stelly II*and *III*were released and our prohibition on tax related appeals was announced. Consequently, we have imposed the identical sanction on the Stellys in this appeal as we did in *Stelly II*and *III.*We reiterate, however, that we will not hesitate to impose more extreme sanctions in the future if the Stellys attempt to avoid our prohibition through "artful pleading” or if they continue to file frivolous appeals after they have paid the sanctions we have assessed to this point.
#### Betty Ann JOHNSON v. Jay U. HOWINGTON, M.D., et al.

No. 2011-CC-1146.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University; Howington M.D., Jay U.; LSU Health Care Services Division; Medical Center of Louisiana at New Orleans a/k/a; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. K, No. 2006-12308; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-C-0364.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Excell LIVERS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0109.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Livers, Excell; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. G, No. 478-658; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Nos. 2009-K-1427, 2009-K-1427.

Denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 11, 2009 

p0831 

Order 

 

September 11, 2009 

139020 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139020 

 COA: 290873 

Macomb CC: 2008-002254-FC 

ALPHONSE GRZELAKOWSKI, II, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 21, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### STATE ex rel. Charlie DANIELS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2852.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Daniels, Charlie; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 55060; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,137-KH.

Denied.
#### Lyndon G. DOYLE, Et al. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 2011-C-0677.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Doyle, Charlotte; Doyle, Lyndon G. et al.; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2009-0179-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1020.

Denied.
#### C. H. Cheveral v. Fred Bowman.

(No. 1623.)

March 5, 1884.

(Note.—Article 1318, Revised Statutes, provides that charges given shall be regarded as excepted to, and subject to revision, without the necessity of taking any bill of exception thereto. This provision of the statute seems to have been overlooked by the court in that portion of the opinion stated in § 115. The cases cited by Presiding Judge White were decided prior to the revision, and when it was required that charges complained of should be objected to at the trial, or they would not be revised, unless it clearly appeared that the jury were misled thereby. See this question discussed and decided in accordance ■with the statute, *post,*§ 135.— Reporter.)

Appeal from Harris County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 114. *Caveat emptor; applies to administrator’s sale; does not apply to a secret trust.*The doctrine of *caveat emptor*applies to sales made by an administrator. But it can only apply so far as to affect a purchaser at such a sale with notice of everything that he could have ascertained by the use of ordinary diligence. [Love v. Berry, 22 Tex. 371.] It does not apply in favor of a secret trust, which by the use of such ordinary diligence would not have been ascertained.

§ 115. *Charge of court; erroneous, will not reverse when.*A charge of itself erroneous will not, in a civil case, be sufficient ground for reversal, when no exception is taken, or additional instruction or counter charge asked, unless it clearly appears that the jury were misled by the charge given and complained of. [Cook v. Wooters, 42 Tex. 294; W. & W. Con. Rep. § 710.]

Affirmed.
First Amend. to the Navistar, Inc. Supplemental Retirement Accumulation Plan



 EXHIBIT 10.86 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 
 NAVISTAR, INC. 
 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT ACCUMULATION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Navistar, Inc. (the
“Company”) maintains the Navistar, Inc. Supplemental Retirement Accumulation Plan (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS,
the Company reserves the right to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 5.1 therein. 
 NOW THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of
the power to amend the Plan reserved to the Company under the Plan, Subsection 2.3(b)(i) of the Plan is hereby amended, effective for discretionary employer contributions to be credited for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2006, as
follows: 
 [PRIOR PLAN LANGUAGE] 
  

	“(b)(i)	With respect to any Former MRO Participant, the portion of the Former MRO Participant’s actual [emphasis added] “employer retirement contribution” (as
defined in the applicable Qualified Plan) attributable to his or her Bonus with respect to such Plan Year (determined by first attributing the Former MRO Participant’s Base Salary for such Plan Year) that is allocated on his or her behalf under
the Qualified Plan for such Plan Year, and” 

 [NEW PLAN LANGUAGE] 
  

	“(b)(i)	With respect to any Former MRO Participant, an amount equal to the portion of the Former MRO Participant’s “employer retirement contribution” (as defined in the
applicable Qualified Plan, but as modified herein) attributable to his or her Bonus with respect to such Plan Year (determined by first attributing the Former MRO Participant’s Base Salary for such Plan Year) that is allocated on his or her
behalf under the Qualified Plan for such Plan Year, except that the determination of such employer retirement contribution shall be determined by using the same single Applicable Percentage that is used in paragraph (a) above in lieu of the
applicable percentage(s) specified in the Qualified Plan, and” 

  

 E-46
#### STATE ex rel. Charles W. DEAL v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0662.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Deal, Charles W.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 285,138; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 09-01156.

Denied.
Exhibit 99.2

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In  connection  with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the Year
Ended  January  31,  2003  (the  "Report")  by Invu,  Inc.  ("Registrant"),  the
undersigned hereby certifies 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
         Registrant.



                                               /s/ John Agostini
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              John Agostini
                                              Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24633]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2917]


Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

Sep 22, 2010.
SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the 
Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and 
published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of these 
documents is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 
12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-
800-378-3160). Oppositions to these petitions must be filed within 15 
days of the date of public notice of the petitions in the Federal 
Register. See Section 1.4(b) (1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 
1.4(b) (1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days 
after the time for filing oppositions has expired.
    Subject: In the Matter of Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission's 
Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications Services in 
the 2.3 GHz Band (WT Docket No. 07-293)
    Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio 
Satellite Service in the 23100-2360 MHz Frequency Band (IB Docket No. 
95-91)
    NUMBER OF PETITIONS FILED: [lsqb]6[rsqb]


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary,
Office of the Secretary,
Office of Managing Director.

[FR Doc. 2010-24633 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-S
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24638]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541)

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Received under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated 
under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published 
regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at title 45, part 670 
of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of 
permit applications received.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, 
or views with respect to this permit application by November 1, 2010. 
This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit 
Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy at the above address 
or (703) 292-7405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Science Foundation, as directed 
by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended 
by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has 
developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for 
various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and 
certain geographic areas requiring special protection. The regulations 
establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially 
Protected Areas.
    The applications received are as follows:
    1. Applicant: Yu-Ping Chin, Department of Geological Sciences, Ohio 
State University, 275 Mendenhall Laboratory, 125 South Oval Mall, 
Columbus, OH 43210-1308.
    Permit Application No. 2011-018.

Activity for Which Permit Is Requested

    Enter Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. The applicant plans to 
center Cape Royds (ASPA 121) and Backdoor Bay, Cape Royds (ASPA 157) to 
access Pony Lake to collect water samples. Samples were collected 
previously from the lake and the microbially derived Dissolved Organic 
Matter (DOM) from this site is now a reference fulvic acid distributed 
by the International Humic Substances Society (IHSS). The applicant 
plans to collect more DOM samples for the purpose of comparing their 
Cotton Glacier samples to Pony Lake DOM.

Location

    Cape Royds (ASPA 121) and Backdoor Bay, Cape Royds (ASPA 157).

Dates

    January 1, 2011 to January 31, 2011.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-24638 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
News United States Air Force
 B-2s conduct deployment to Indo-Asia-PacificPublished Aug. 9, 2016
                        
                        By Pacific Air Forces Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE PEARL HARBOR-HICKAM, Hawaii (AFNS) --**
                Three B-2 Spirits deployed from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, to Andersen AFB, Guam, in the U.S. Pacific Command area of operations Aug. 9.U.S. Strategic Command bombers regularly rotate through the Indo-Asia-Pacific region to conduct PACOM-led air operations, providing leaders with deterrent options to maintain regional stability. During this short-term deployment, the B-2s will conduct local and regional training sorties, and will integrate capabilities with key regional partners, ensuring bomber crews maintain a high state of readiness and crew proficiency.“Our strategic bomber force routinely operates around the globe and with our regional allies and partners, and this deployment is one such demonstration of the U.S. commitment to supporting global and regional security,” said Navy Adm. Cecil D. Haney, the STRATCOM commander. “Bomber training missions ensure crews maintain a high state of readiness and proficiency and demonstrate our ability to provide an always-ready global strike capability, whenever and wherever we are called to do so.”STRATCOM routinely demonstrates its capability to command, control and conduct global bomber missions.“Bomber aircraft provide the (PACOM) area of responsibility with an effective deterrent capability, ensuring the regional security and stability of the U.S. and our allies and partners,” said Air Force Gen. Terrence O’Shaughnessy, the Pacific Air Forces commander. “These bomber deployments visibly demonstrate our readiness and commitment to the Indo-Asia-Pacific region.”One of nine Defense Department unified combatant commands, STRATCOM is charged with strategic deterrence; space operations; cyberspace operations; joint electronic warfare; global strike; missile defense; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; combating weapons of mass destruction; and analysis and targeting.B-2 



Whiteman AFB 



AFGSC 



PACAF 



Andersen AFB 



Guam Related Links
        B-2 Spirit
                                Dec. 16, 2015
                                The B-2 Spirit is a multi-role bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions. A dramatic leap forward in technology, the B-2 brings massive firepower to bear, in a short time, anywhere on the globe through previously impenetrable defenses.