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

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4782

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the dependent care

tax credit refundable and to increase the amount of allowable dependent

care expenses, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 9, 1998

Mr. THOMPSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make

the dependent care tax credit refundable and to increase

the amount of allowable dependent care expenses, and

for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDIT.

4 (a) MAKING CREDIT REFUNDABLE.—

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Part IV of subchapter A of

6 chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is

7 amended—
2

•HR 4782 IH

1 (A) in subpart C (relating to refundable

2 credits) by redesignating section 35 as section

3 36, and

4 (B) by moving section 21 from subpart A

5 to subpart C and redesignating such section as

6 section 35.

7 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.—

8 (A) The table of sections for subpart A of

9 part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such

10 Code is amended by striking the item relating

11 to section 21.

12 (B) The table of sections for subpart C of

13 part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such

14 Code is amended by striking the item relating

15 to section 35 and inserting the following:

‘‘Sec. 35. Expenses for household and dependent care services

necessary for gainful employment.

‘‘Sec. 36. Overpayments of tax.’’.

16 (b) INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMIT.—Subsection (c) of

17 section 35 of such Code (as redesignated by subsection

18 (a) of this section) is amended—

19 (1) by striking ‘‘$2,400’’ in paragraph (1) and

20 inserting ‘‘$3,000’’, and

21 (2) by striking ‘‘$4,800’’ in paragraph (2) and

22 inserting ‘‘$6,000’’.
3

•HR 4782 IH

1 (c) INCREASE IN APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—Para2 graph (2) of section 35(a) of such Code (as redesignated

3 by subsection (a) of this section) is amended—

4 (1) by striking ‘‘$2,000’’ and inserting

5 ‘‘$3,000’’, and

6 (2) by striking ‘‘$10,000’’ and inserting

7 ‘‘$30,000’’.

8 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

9 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

10 December 31, 1998.

Æ
Exhibit
32.1




YUHE
INTERNATIONAL, INC.




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 YUHE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gao Zhentao, the
Chief Executive 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
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.




Date: May
14, 2010




/s/
      Gao ZhentaoGao
      ZhentaoChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive
Officer)
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Marco Antonio Salazar, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-02083-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Petitioner Marco A. Salazar’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle’s Report and Recommendation 

(R&R). Docs. 1, 16. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 16 at 

5. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections 

to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the 

right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 6 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Petitioner did not file objections, 

which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . 

require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate 

judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless 

reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R and 

Case 2:15-cv-02083-DLR Document 17 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, 

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 

magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify 

the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 

magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Boyle’s R&R, Doc. 16, is ACCEPTED. 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED and DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is 

justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling 

debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this 

case. 

 Dated this 6th day of June, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02083-DLR Document 17 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
  /s/ John E. HarperJohn E. Harper,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"Supercomputers Aid Quesst Researchers in Predicting X-59\u2019s Sound","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uSuJIwrtCg\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/supercomputers-aid-quesst-researchers-in-predicting-x-59s-sound\/\">Supercomputers Aid Quesst Researchers in Predicting X-59\u2019s Sound<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/supercomputers-aid-quesst-researchers-in-predicting-x-59s-sound\/embed\/#?secret=uSuJIwrtCg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Supercomputers Aid Quesst Researchers in Predicting X-59\u2019s Sound” — NASA\" data-secret=\"uSuJIwrtCg\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/hd21.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":457}
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 602 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 602

 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Attorney 
  General to provide for special consideration concerning the English 
language requirement with respect to the naturalization of individuals 
                         over 65 years of age.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 1997

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Attorney 
  General to provide for special consideration concerning the English 
language requirement with respect to the naturalization of individuals 
                         over 65 years of age.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION CONCERNING ENGLISH LANGUAGE 
              REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN OLDER INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 312(b) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1423(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(4) The Attorney General, pursuant to regulations, shall provide 
for special consideration, as determined by the Attorney General, 
concerning the requirement of subsection (a)(1) with respect to any 
person who, on the date of the filing of the person's application for 
naturalization as provided in section 334, is over sixty-five years of 
age and has been living in the United States for periods totaling at 
least 5 years subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent 
residence.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to 
applications for naturalization filed on or after such date and to such 
applications pending on such date.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 667 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 667

       To amend the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
   Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide for an exception to limited 
    eligibility for SSI and food stamps for totally and permanently 
                  disabled permanent resident aliens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 1997

   Mr. Diaz-Balart (for himself and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 
  and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To amend the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
   Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide for an exception to limited 
    eligibility for SSI and food stamps for totally and permanently 
                  disabled permanent resident aliens.

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

SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO LIMITED ELIGIBILITY FOR SSI AND FOOD STAMPS FOR 
              TOTALLY AND PERMANENTLY DISABLED PERMANENT RESIDENT 
              ALIENS.

    (a) In General.--Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal Responsibility 
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)) 
is amended by adding after subparagraph (D) the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(E) Totally and permanently disabled permanent 
                resident aliens.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an 
                alien who--
                            ``(i) is lawfully admitted to the United 
                        States for permanent residence under the 
                        Immigration and Nationality Act; and
                            ``(ii) has a total and permanent disability 
                        which arose after the alien was admitted to the 
                        United States.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be 
effective as if included in the enactment of title IV of the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
                                 <all>
```
423 A.2d 1311

#### Commonwealth v. Mangini, Appellant.

Argued August 28, 1979.

James L. Jubelirer, for appellant; James C. Blackman, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, LARSEN and LAVELLE, JJ.*

*

 Justice Rolf Larsen of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and Judge John E. Lavelle of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylldll County, Pennsylvania, are sitting by designation.

*642Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County, denying post-conviction relief is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Five Star
Products, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such
officer's knowledge:

         (1) The 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.


Date: March 31, 2006



Charles Dawson                                       Neal Collins
Chief Executive Officer                              Chief Financial Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"USRC Students Sees Success with Crowdfunding","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"e64JnK8KVa\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/usrc_team_observing_3d_printing\/\">USRC Students Sees Success with Crowdfunding<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/usrc_team_observing_3d_printing\/embed\/#?secret=e64JnK8KVa\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“USRC Students Sees Success with Crowdfunding” — NASA\" data-secret=\"e64JnK8KVa\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/usrc_team_observing_3d_printing.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":339}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,788
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,996
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,415
<PP&E>                                          27,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,590
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 163,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,055
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   163,725
<SALES>                                         18,309
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,309
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,841
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,164
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,064
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,064
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09


</TABLE>
Case 2:15-mj-01765-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/23/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01765-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/23/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01765-JFM Document 4 Filed 10/23/15 Page 3 of 3
#### Vanblaricum *v.*Ward.

If the continuance of a'cause be refused, when the party is legally entitled to it, the .judgment will be reversed.

APPEAL from the *Dearborn*Circuit Court. — Trespass against *Vanblaricum*for an assault and battery. Plea, son assault demesne. Replication, de injuria. The defendant below moved for a continuance of the cause upon an affidavit of the absence of witnesses, &e. The *motion*was overruled, and the proceedings thereon made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions. — ■ Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the Circuit Court.

The refusal of the Court to grant the continuance, was the only error assigned.

Lane, for the appellant.

Scott, J.

On the subject of this case there have been various decisions. We consider a motion for a continuance, as an application to the sound, legal discretion of the Court, over which, if improperly used, a Superior *Court*will exercise a control. The rules and practice of Courts are now so well settled, that we are not left to vague uncertainty in this, more than in other principles of common law. There are many cases in which a party, without any laches on his part, may, by the unexpected absence of a witness, be placed in such a situation, that, without a continuance, he cannot possibly obtain his right; and to refuse a continuance in such cases, is tantamount to a refusal of justice. The case cited, 6 Cranch, 218(1), places a motion for a-continuance on the same footing with a motion for a new trial; and there appears to be no good reason for a distinction. It has been decided by (his Court, that a refusal to grant a new trial may be assigned for error (2). A. refusal to grant a continuance maybe assigned for error also.

The affidavit in this case is substantially good, and the Court erred in refusing a continuance.

*Per Curiam,*

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings up to the motion for a continuance are set aside, with costs. Cause remanded for further proceedings, not inconsistent with this opinion.

(1)

**The *M. I. Co. of Alexandria*v. *Hodgson.*According to that case, the refusal to allow a plea to be amended, or a new plea to be filed, or to grant a new trial, or to continue a cause, cannot be assigned as error. In Fa., the refusal to grant a continuance, may be assigned for error. *Higginbotham*v. *Chamberlayne,*4 Munf. 547. So also in *Ky., Smith*v. *Snoddy, 2*Marsh. 382. *— Davis*v. *Gray,*3 Littell, 451.

(2)

*Goldsby*v. *Robertson,*ante, p. 21.