alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Sandra L. Johnson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/sandra-l-johnsonnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-60","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"tXfO1i2O21\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-60\/\">STS-60<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-60\/embed\/#?secret=tXfO1i2O21\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-60” — NASA\" data-secret=\"tXfO1i2O21\" 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\/03\/sts060-s-0105.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":392}
**EXHIBIT 32.2****Written Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**The undersigned, the Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary of WebsterPreferred Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the datehereof:(a) the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 filed on thedate hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13a or 15d of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.       /s/ Gregory S. Madar     Gregory S. Madar,    Senior Vice President,    Treasurer and Assistant Secretary    Principal Financial and Accounting Officer    November 7, 2005  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toWebster Preferred Capital Corporation and will be retained by Webster Preferred Capital Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
20
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PAWNMART, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MAY 1, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1999
<CASH>                                       1,024,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,445,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,807,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,486,000
<PP&E>                                       4,322,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,080,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,675,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          793,000
<BONDS>                                      8,625,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,293,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,675,000
<SALES>                                      2,885,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,347,000
<CGS>                                        2,051,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,802,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               890,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             197,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (542,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (542,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (542,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)


</TABLE>
#### CHRISTIAN VORLANDER AND OTHERS v. A. J. HOKENSON AND ANOTHER. A. J. HOKENSON, APPELLANT.1

January 23, 1920.

No. 21,625.

Case followed.

Action in the district court for Hennepin county for judgment directing defendant James G. Houghton, as inspector of buildings, to cancel a pretended permit, issued to defendant Hokenson, to construct a certain three-story brick apartment building and for a temporary injunction restraining Hokenson and others acting under him from erecting the building. Prom an order, Bardwell, J., granting a temporary injunction and from the writ of injunction, defendant Hokenson appealed.

Reversed.

*Thompson, Hessian & Fletcher,*for appellant.

*Ricke*& *Hamrum,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 175 N. W. 995.

Pee Cubiam.

The facts bring this case within the rule stated and applied in State v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226, 158 N. W. 1017, and State v. City of Minneapolis, 136 Minn. 479, 162 N. W. 477. No distinction in point of substance can be *485made between the facts there presented and those here before the court, and the decisions there rendered are followed and applied.

The order appealed from is therefore reversed.
#### Blackford and Others, Executors of Johnson, *v.*Peltier.

The statute *of*limitations is constitutional: it has no reference to the validity of contracts, but only prescribes the time within which they may be enforced, and after that withholds the remedy.

APPEAL from the *Knox*Circuit Court. — Assumpsit by *Peltier*for money had and received to his use, by the defendants’ testator. The defendants pleaded, 1st, the general issue; 2dly, the statute of limitations. Upon the *first*plea the plaintiff below took issue. To the *second*he demurred, and the defendants joined in demurrer. — The second plea was adjudged unconstitutional. — Verdict.and judgment for the plaintiff in the Circuit Court.

The appellants contended that their second plea was valid, and the demurrer to it ought not to have been sustained.

*Tcébs,*for the appellants.

Scott, J.

That a statute of limitations is unconstitutional, is a novel doctrine, and we see no good reason to justify the innovation. The statute has no reference to the nature, the construction, or the validity of contracts; nor to the rights and obligations of parties arising out of them. It never destroys the right, but only prescribes the time in which that right may be enforced; and after the lapse of the time mentioned, it withholds the remedy (1).

Blackford, J., being a party in the cause, gave no opinion.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment .is reversed, and the proceedings on the issues are set aside, with costs. Cause remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions to permit the plaintiff to withdraw his demurrer, and reply to the plea of the statute of limitations.

(1)

 Statutes of limitations relate to the remedies which are furnished in the Courts. They rather establish, that certain circumstances shall amount to evidence that a contract has been performed, than dispense with its performance. If, in a state where six years may be pleaded in bar to an action of assumpsit, a law should pass declaring that contracts already in existence, not barred by the statute, should be construed to be within it, there could be little doubt of its unconstitutionality. Per *Marshall,*C. J. *Sturgesv. Crown*inshield, 4 Wheat. Rep. 207.

The statute of limitations is founded on the presumption that the debt is paid, bat the evidence of payment lost. Its object, therefore, is not to impair the contract, but merely to supply a deficieucy of evidence. Hence it is, that, in assumpsit, an acknowledgment, within the time limited, of the existence of the debt, takes the case out of the statute: the statutory presumption of payment being thus destroyed.
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 736

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 12, 1997

Mr. STUMP (for himself and Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania) introduced the

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

A BILL

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of the Internal Reve5 nue Code of 1986 (relating to estate, gift, and generation6 skipping taxes) is hereby repealed.

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub8 section (a) shall apply to estates of decedents dying, and

9 transfers made, after the date of the enactment of this

10 Act.

Æ
Exhibit
13.2







PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350







In
connection with this Annual Report of CalPetro Tankers (IOM) Limited (the
“Company”) on Form 20-F for the annual period ended December 31, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Kate Blankenship, the 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
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.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.
 
 Date: May
20, 2009
 
 
 /s/ Kate
Blankenship
 Kate
Blankenship
 Principal
Financial Officer
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C., as Assignee of Phillip Gibbs, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>MVAIC, Appellant. </font></b></div><br><br><p>Marshall &amp; Marshall, PLLC (Barbara Carabell of counsel), for appellant.Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Evan Polansky of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Devin P. Cohen, J.), entered August 2, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,130.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, with $30 costs, and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) appeals from a judgment of the Civil Court which, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,130.</p><p>"The filing of a timely affidavit providing the MVAIC with notice of intention to file a claim is 'a condition precedent to the right to apply for payment from [MVAIC].' Compliance with the statutory requirement of timely filing a notice of claim must be established in order to demonstrate that the claimant is a 'covered person,' within the meaning of the statute, entitled to recover no-fault benefits from the MVAIC" (<a href="../2016/2016_51535.htm" target="_blank"><i>Avicenna Med. Arts, P.L.L.C. v MVAIC</i>, 53 Misc 3d 142</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51535[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2016] [citation omitted]; <i>see</i> Insurance Law §§ 5208 [a] [1], [3]; 5221 [b] [2]). As plaintiff did not establish that such an affidavit had been submitted to MVAIC, plaintiff failed to establish its <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>prima facie case (<i>see</i> Insurance Law §§ 5202 [b]; 5208, 5221 [b] [2]). In light of the foregoing, we reach no other issue.</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Civil Court for the entry of a judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: October 18, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS )

LIABILITY LITIGATION, ) 

 )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: )

 )

Robert Peery, ) MDL Docket No. 15-2641

C.A. No. CV-15-1883-PHX-DGC )

 ) 

 )

Robert Peery, ) NOTICE

 ) 

 Plaintiff(s), ) 

 ) 

v. )

 )

C R Bard, Inc., et al., )

 )

 Defendant(s) )

 IN THE ABOVE MATTER, you are advised that the case listed 

above (formerly Western District of Tennessee 1:15-cv-1153) is now

consolidated with and part of MDL No. 2641 pursuant to the Transfer

Order filed September 14, 2015. Therefore, future pleadings 

pertaining to the above case will be filed in MDL-No. 2641, The 

title page of these documents should be prepared as shown 

above. 

 

September 21, 2015 BRIAN D. KARTH 

 Date DCE/Clerk of Court

 s/M. Pruneau 

 Deputy Clerk 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 84 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 1
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

District of Arizona

Chad McAllister and Jordan McAllister, individually

and as husband and wife; Mind Smoothie, LLC, an

Arizona limited liability company; Chad's Videos,

LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; et al.

Plaintiffs)

v.

Alan Halls and Tamara Halls, individually and as

husband and wife; Course Saver, LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company; and Course Saver, LLC, a

Utah limited liability company etc., et al.

Defendants)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

TO: (Defendanr's name and address) Alan Halls, Statutory Agent for Course Saver, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liabiltity

Company, 1142 E. 2000 North, Lehi, UT 84043

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) —you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff attorney,

whose name and address are: Bradley D. Weech

Jackson White, P.C.

40 N. Center, St., Suite 200

Mesa, AZ 85201

480-464-1111

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 2:15-cv-02204-ESW Document 2 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 64368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25736]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available 
for Licensing

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States 
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are 
available for domestic and foreign licensing by the Department of the 
Navy.
    The following patents are available for licensing: Patent No. 
8,852,950: HELICOPTER WEAPON MOUNTING SYSTEM//Patent No. 8,855,961: 
BINARY DEFINITION FILES.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the patents cited should be directed 
to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 
Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface 
Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 
47522-5001, telephone 812-854-4100.

    Authority:  35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: October 22, 2014.
N.A. Hagerty-Ford,
Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-25736 Filed 10-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00468-CR

Darrius Hemmingway

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-16151

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 21, 2016
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Antonia Jaramillo","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ajarami1\/","title":"Meet the Women Launching, Recovering Artemis Missions\u00a0","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RRaqZBO0qL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/meet-the-women-launching-recovering-artemis-missions\/\">Meet the Women Launching, Recovering Artemis Missions\u00a0<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/meet-the-women-launching-recovering-artemis-missions\/embed\/#?secret=RRaqZBO0qL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Meet the Women Launching, Recovering Artemis Missions\u00a0” — NASA\" data-secret=\"RRaqZBO0qL\" 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\/2024\/03\/ksc-20240315-ph-kls01-0004large.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### The Commonwealth *v.*William Sherrit.

Bail — Recognizance—Forfeiture—Motion to Vacate Order — Time to Make.

A motion to vacate an order forfeiting a recognizance must be made at the same term at which such order is made.

Same — Remission—Accused Must be in Custody.

The accused must be in the custody of the court before a remission will be made on a forfeited recognizance.

APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 7, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The appellee, William Sherrit, as surety in the recognizance for the appearance of Frank Sherrit at the October term, 1868. might, by motion, have been entitled to a vacation of the payment of the forfeiture had he filed his affidavit during that term, but, at the subsequent term when he made the application, the court had no jurisdiction except that of discretionary remission given by the 94th section of the Criminal Code which requires that before such remission, the accused shall, by voluntary surrender *422or otherwise, be in the custody of the court. Consequently, as the record does not show this indisputable prerequisite, the judgment of remission was unauthorized and erroneous. *Commonwealth vs.*Rowland, *4th Met.*

*Attorney*General, *for appellant.*

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a judgment consistent with this opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2886 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2886

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
                 certain hazard mitigation assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 4, 2004

   Mr. Bond 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 exclude from gross income 
                 certain hazard mitigation assistance.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR CERTAIN DISASTER MITIGATION 
              PAYMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to disaster relief payments) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Certain Disaster Mitigation Payments.--Gross income shall not 
include the value of any amount received directly or indirectly as 
payment or benefit by the owner of any property for hazard mitigation 
with respect to the property pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act or the National Flood 
Insurance Act.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years ending on or after December 31, 2004.
                                 <all>
```