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

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 531

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the applicability

of the generation-skipping transfer tax.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1997

Mr. HOUGHTON (for himself and Mr. MATSUI) 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 limit the

applicability of the generation-skipping transfer tax.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY OF GENERA4 TION-SKIPPING TRANSFER TAX.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2651 (relating to genera6 tion assignment) is amended by redesignating subsection

7 (e) as subsection (f), and by inserting after subsection (d)

8 the following new subsection:

9 ‘‘(e) SPECIAL RULE FOR PERSONS WITH A DE10 CEASED PARENT.—
2

HR 531 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of determin2 ing whether any transfer is a generation-skipping

3 transfer, if—

4 ‘‘(A) an individual is a descendant of a

5 parent of the transferor (or the transferor’s

6 spouse or former spouse), and

7 ‘‘(B) such individual’s parent who is a lin8 eal descendant of the parent of the transferor

9 (or the transferor’s spouse or former spouse) is

10 dead at the time the transfer (from which an

11 interest of such individual is established or de12 rived) is subject to a tax imposed by chapter 11

13 or 12 upon the transferor (and if there shall be

14 more than 1 such time, then at the earliest

15 such time),

16 such individual shall be treated as if such individual

17 were a member of the generation which is 1 genera18 tion below the lower of the transferor’s generation or

19 the generation assignment of the youngest living an20 cestor of such individual who is also a descendant of

21 the parent of the transferor (or the transferor’s

22 spouse or former spouse), and the generation assign23 ment of any descendant of such individual shall be

24 adjusted accordingly.
3

HR 531 IH

1 ‘‘(2) LIMITED APPLICATION OF SUBSECTION TO

2 COLLATERAL HEIRS.—This subsection shall not

3 apply with respect to a transfer to any individual

4 who is not a lineal descendant of the transferor (or

5 the transferor’s spouse or former spouse) if, at the

6 time of the transfer, such transferor has any living

7 lineal descendant.’’.

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

9 (1) Section 2612(c) of the Internal Revenue

10 Code of 1986 (defining direct skip) is amended by

11 striking paragraph (2) and by redesignating para12 graph (3) as paragraph (2).

13 (2) Section 2612(c)(2) of such Code (as so re14 designated) is amended by striking ‘‘section

15 2651(e)(2)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 2651(f)(2)’’.

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

17 this section shall apply to terminations, distributions, and

18 transfers occurring after the date of enactment of this sec19 tion.

Æ
Exhibit 31

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATION

I, Robert K. Ipson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Powerball International, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 12, 2003

/s/Robert K. Ipson
Robert K. Ipson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Elizabeth Gonzalez

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02111

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

Janet Dhillon

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, January 8, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Telephonic status

hearing held on 1/8/2021. Oral ruling made regarding the defendant's motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss [28] is denied with respect to the background check issue.

Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss, regarding the SF 50 and the EEOC issues, is

due 2/1/2021; defendant's reply is due 2/15/2021. Fact discovery is to be completed by

10/8/2021. The deadline for amending the pleadings and adding parties is 8/27/2021.

Defendant's oral request to supplement their 12(b)(6) motion with an affidavit is denied. A

telephonic status hearing is set for 3/15/2021 at 9:15 a.m. The following call−in number

will be used for the hearing: 888−684−8852 conference code 746−1053. Mailed notice.

(mma, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 31 Filed: 01/08/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:346
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michele Ostovar","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/michele-e-ostovarnasa-gov\/","title":"Mariner-C Spacecraft Model","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"h1i8SJKGFI\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-grc-1964-c-70182\/\">Mariner-C Spacecraft Model<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-grc-1964-c-70182\/embed\/#?secret=h1i8SJKGFI\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Mariner-C Spacecraft Model” — NASA\" data-secret=\"h1i8SJKGFI\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/GRC-1964-C-70182\/GRC-1964-C-70182~orig.jpg?w=600&h=1536&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1536}
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ares Capital Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), R. Kipp deVeer, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Penni F. Roll, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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 the best of his 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:
February 22, 2017



/s/ R. KIPP DEVEER R. Kipp deVeer Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)/s/ PENNI F. ROLL Penni F. Roll Chief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Ares Capital Corporation and will be retained by Ares Capital Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 32.1****Written Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**The undersigned, the President of Webster Preferred Capital Corporation (the “Company”),hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:(a) the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 filed on the datehereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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/ William T. Bromage   William T. Bromage,   President
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 699

To guarantee the right of all active duty military personnel, merchant

mariners, and their dependents to vote in Federal, State, and local elections.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 12, 1997

Mr. BONILLA (for himself and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Oversight,

and in addition to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs, and the Judiciary, 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 guarantee the right of all active duty military personnel,

merchant mariners, and their dependents to vote in Federal, State, and local elections.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Voting Rights

5 Act of 1997’’.
2

HR 699 IH

1 SEC. 2. GUARANTEE OF RESIDENCY.

2 Article VII of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief

3 Act of 1940 (50 U.S.C. App. 590 et seq.) is amended by

4 adding at the end the following new section:

5 ‘‘SEC. 704. (a) For purposes of voting for an office

6 of the United States or of a State, a person who is absent

7 from a State in compliance with military or naval orders

8 shall not, solely by reason of that absence—

9 ‘‘(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or

10 domicile in that State;

11 ‘‘(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or

12 domicile in any other State; or

13 ‘‘(3) be deemed to have become resident in or

14 a resident of any other State.

15 ‘‘(b) In this section, the term ‘State’ includes a terri16 tory or possession of the United States, a political subdivi17 sion of a State, territory, or possession, and the District

18 of Columbia.’’.

19 SEC. 3. STATE RESPONSIBILITY TO GUARANTEE MILITARY

20 VOTING RIGHTS.

21 (a) REGISTRATION AND BALLOTING.—Section 102 of

22 the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act

23 (42 U.S.C. 1973ff–1) is amended—

24 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL

25 OFFICES.—’’ before ‘‘Each State shall—’’; and
3

HR 699 IH

1 by adding at the end the following new sub2 section:

3 ‘‘(b) ELECTIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL OF4 FICES.—Each State shall—

5 ‘‘(1) permit absent uniformed services voters to

6 use absentee registration procedures and to vote by

7 absentee ballot in general, special, primary, and run8 off elections for State and local offices; and

9 ‘‘(2) accept and process, with respect to any

10 election described in paragraph (1), any otherwise

11 valid voter registration application from an absent

12 uniformed services voter if the application is received

13 by the appropriate State election official not less

14 than 30 days before the election.’’.

15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading for

16 title I of such Act is amended by striking ‘‘FOR FED17 ERAL OFFICE’’.

Æ
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
Marisa Christina, Incorporated:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 33-91078 and 33-91080) on Form S-8 of Marisa Christina, Incorporated of
our report dated March 17, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Marisa Christina, Incorporated and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003
and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income
(loss), stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and related schedule which report
appears in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Marisa Christina,
Incorporated.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Baltimore, Maryland
March 17, 2005
#### Commonwealth and Millspaugh’s Exor. v. W. B. Tipton.

Attorney and Client — Assignment of Execution by Attorney Without Authority — On Collection Sheriff Should Pay to Original Owner of Execution..

Where an attorney transfers his client’s execution without authority, the sheriff who collects same is liable to the original owner for the amount.'

APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

January 20, 1872.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin :

This was an action against the appellee as sheriff of Montgomery county, for failing to pay over to the plaintiff, or his attorney for him, the amount of a debt, collected by the defendant, on an execution in favor of the plaintiff, B. M. Hathaway, as executor of Levi T. Millspaugh, deceased, against J. H. Graves, which, as the plaintiffs in their petition alleged, was without right, paid by the defendant to L. D. Wilson, who “pretended to own said execution by sale and transfer, made on it by one J. M. Crawford, attorney for Millspaugh’s executor;” said sale and transfer having been made without the knowledge, consent or authority of the plaintiff.

The court below having dismissed the petition, on demurrer, the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

Begarding, as we must, the allegation as true, that the defendant, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, paid the money to Wilson, who claimed it as a purchaser and assignee of the attorney, Crawford, the only essential question to be determined is, whether the sale and transfer of the debt by the plaintiff’s attorney, though wrongfully made, were sufficient to authorize the sheriff to pay the money to Wilson.

We think the proper scope and extent of the duty and authority of an attorney at law are ordinarily limited to, the institution of suits and their prosecution or defense, and such acts, in and out of court, pertaining thereto, including the receipt of money for the client,, as the latter might do himself in order to obtain or *672protect Ms rights -by means of his suit or defense; but the employment of attorney does not imply an agency to sell and transfer the client’s claims or authority to convert them to the attorney’s own use (Smith’s Heirs vs. Dixon, &c., 3 Metcalf 438).

*Apperson & Reid, for appellants.*

*Tenney & Summers, for appellee.*

It results that, in our opinion, the petition disclosed a good cause of action, and the court erred in sustaining the demurrer.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
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
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Imagin Molecular Corporation (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), Corey N. Conn, as Chief Financial Officer hereby certifies, 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), as
applicable 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
Registrant.
 
 
 Dated:
      November 16, 2009
              /s/ Corey N. ConnCorey
      N. ConnChief
      Financial Officer(principal
      accounting officer)
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Imagin Molecular Corporation and will be retained by Imagin Molecular
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
<PAGE> 1

Exhibit 99

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 of Powerball International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the "Report"), I, Robert
K. Ipson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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


/S/ Robert K. Ipson

Robert K. Ipson
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
May 23, 2003
#### E. R. Ray *v.*B. M. Walker et al.

Evidence — Co-incidence of Names of Plaintiff in Another Suit, Offered.

Depositions in another suit, were offered as evidence, in which “Bums M. Walker ” as a defendant testified, and was sought to be used in this suit wherein “B. M. Walker” was a plaintiff, to prove his contradicting statements. Held that the presumption of identity arising from the co-incidence of names, in the absence of any evidence to repel it, was prima facie sufficient as a slight evidence of identity.

APPEAL EROM HICKMAN CIRCUIT COURT.

November 2, 1870.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin:

This appeal is prosecuted for the reversal of a judgment of eviction in an ordinary action for the recovery of a lot in the city of Oolunibus. The appellees, on the trial, sought to establish their title by proof of -a continuous adverse possession of the lot by them *152and their ancestor, William Walker, under whom they claimed, for over twenty years before the appellant acquired the possession, and for that purpose they produced and offered to read as evidence to the jury an answer of the defendant filed in a suit of Edward Curd’s executors against him, containing' statements to the effect that Burns M. Walker, and those under whom he claimed, were and had been in the adverse possession of the lot from the time he acquired his claim from said executors; and without any proof identifying Burns M. Walker as one of the plaintiffs, except the coincidence of his name with that of one of the plaintiffs, the court overruled an objection of the defendant to the admisison of the answer as evidence and permitted it to be read to the jury; and whether this ruling was correct or not is the principal-question presented by this appeal.

*Rodman, for appellant.*

*Bulloch, for appellees.*

Undoubtedly some proof identifying Walker as one of the plaintiffs, or of those under whom they claimed, was necessary to render the answer admissible; but as slight evidence of that fact was *prima facie*sufficient, we think the presumption of identity arising from the coincidence of names, in the absence of any evidence to repel it, was sufficient for that purpose, and the court properly so ruled. *(1 Greenleaf on Evidence, section 512.)*

We perceive no error in the action of the court, either in instructing the jury or overruling the motion for a new trial.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*