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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 160 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 

deduction for State and local taxes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. MIKE GARCIA of California 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 repeal 

the limitation on deduction for State and local taxes, 

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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SALT Fairness Act 

5 of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR STATE 

7 AND LOCAL, ETC. TAXES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 164(b) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph 

10 (6). 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 160 IH

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

2 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in section 

3 11042 of Public Law 115–97. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JESSE LEE ARNOLD, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0763-WS-C

UNITED STATES OF : CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-0002-WS

AMERICA, 

:

Respondent.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed

relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B)

and dated January 11, 2010 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE this 21st day of April, 2010.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cr-00002-WS-C Document 16 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002      In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Arthur S. Rosten, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.           /s/ Arthur S. Rosten   Arthur S. Rosten   Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME OF MONSANTO COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND THE STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
POSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996. SUCH INFORMATION IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,930<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,476
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,340
<PP&E>                                           7,588
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,575
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,401
<BONDS>                                          1,608
<COMMON>                                         1,644
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,046
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,191
<SALES>                                          9,262
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,262
<CGS>                                            4,918
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 171
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    540
<INCOME-TAX>                                       155
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                385
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       385
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> Reported net of allowances of $53
        

</TABLE>
10861.

#### Savannah Electric Company *v.*Joseph.

Decided July 19, 1920.

Action for damages; from city court of Savannah—Judge Freeman. July 18, 1919.

*Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams,*for plaintiff in error.

*Anderson, Cann, Cann & Walsh,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. In a suit against a street-ear company to recover for damage to personal property, caused by the running of one of the defendant’s cars, there is a presumption of negligence against the defendant, which presumption, taken together with the evidence of negligence on the pai't of the plaintiff, may constitute an issue for the jury. Even though plaintiff’s negligence be conclusively shown, its causal connection with the injury may nevertheless be a question for the jury.

2. It is not the duty of the trial judge to instruct the jury as to what facts constitute negligence. It was proper to refuse a request of the defendant to charge that *“A*railroad track is a place of danger, and one who goes thereon is bound to know that he is going into a place where he is subject to the dangers incident to the operation of cars upon that track.” While this is stated as a truism by the Supreme Court in *Western & Atlantic Railroad Co.*v. *Ferguson,*113 *Ga.*708, 713 (39 S. E. 306, 54 L. R. A. 802), it does not necessarily follow that it should be given in charge to the jury. *Atlanta & West Pt. Railroad Co.*v. *Hudson,*123 *Ga.*108 (51 S. E. 29).

3. The other special request to charge was, so far as pertinent, covered by the general charge.

4. A statement in the charge of the court not adjusted to the evidence is not reversible error when it is harmless and not prejudicial to the losing party.

5. The court correctly instructed the jury relative to the impeachment of witnesses by previous contradictory statements. It was therefore not error to fail to instruct the jury further in this connection, in the absence of any special request therefor.

6. The evidence supports the verdict and no error of law appears.-

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL J. BROWN, :

AIS 186027,

:

Petitioner,

:

vs. CA 04-0818-BH-C

:

JERRY FARRELL,

:

Respondent.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition, filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is due to be DISMISSED as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

DONE this 26th day of September, 2005.

 s/ W. B. Hand 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00818-BH-C Document 15 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund VI, Ltd. at June 30, 1998, and its statement of income
for the six months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10Q of CNL Income Fund VI, ltd. for the six months ended June 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,433,338
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  388,859
<ALLOWANCES>                                   336,917
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      22,145,930
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,358,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,791,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,788,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,791,350
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,486,420
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  343,278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,854
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,568,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,568,769
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,568,769
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund VI, Ltd. has an
unclassified balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
#### Emanuel M. COMORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECURITY TITLE INSURANCE CO., etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. Emanuel M. COMORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECURITY TITLE INSURANCE CO., etc., et al., Defendants, and Safeco Title Insurance Co., and Wells Fargo National Bank, Defendants-Appellees. Emanuel M. COMORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECURITY TITLE INSURANCE CO., etc., et al., Defendants, and Fierstein and Sturman, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 78-1711, 78-2488 and 78-2489.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 29, 1980.

*684Donald R. Colvin, Beverly Hills, Cal., argued for Emanuel M. Comora; James N. Laichas," Panorama City, Cal., on the brief.

Mark I. Rosenberg, Los Angeles, Cal., argued for Security Title Ins. Co., etc., et al.; Thomas E. Gallagher, Richard S. Odom, Los Angeles, Cal., James N. Laichas, Panorama City, Cal., Michael J. Matlaf, Los Angeles, Cal., on the brief.

Before CHAMBERS, SNEED and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In 1964 appellant Comora bought an apartment house in Los Angeles and gave the seller a note for $86,000. When the seller died, he attempted to convince the executor (Beverly Hills National Bank) that he had paid $26,000 on the note and that the seller had given him a note for $60,000 as an offset to' the purchase price. The estate denied the claim and appellant has been litigating the issue ever since.

The present action was brought against Wells Fargo Bank (which purchased the executor bank’s assets in liquidation), the Comptroller of the Currency (conservator for the defunct bank), the attorneys who represented the bank, and the title insurance company or its successor.

The claims raised by Comora here have either been litigated in State court or they could have been so litigated in any of the various actions prosecuted there. Some of the claims made here are untimely within applicable statutes of limitations. The claims against the bank and its conservator are made in the face of orders of the district court, in the liquidation proceedings, barring all future claims such as those made here. We have reviewed the record and it is clear that the district judge was entirely justified in granting the motions to dismiss as to certain appellees and granting summary judgment as to the others.

Appellees Fierstein & Sturman were granted attorneys’ fees by the California Court of Appeal as the result of one of the previous lawsuits. Appellant would have us interfere in some way with that decision, something we have no power to do, even if we were so inclined, which we are not.

Appellee attorneys, with some justification, have asked that sanctions be imposed in the nature of double costs or attorneys’ fees under Rule 38, F.R.A.P. We have given their suggestion considerable thought but have decided that costs in the instant appeals will be governed by the usual rules prescribed in Rule 39, F.R.A.P. However, appellant should note that it would be unlikely that we would be so constrained if he attempts, once again, to relitigate these issues.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BUSINESSES OF PACTIV CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      301
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        404
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   924
<PP&E>                                           1,856
<DEPRECIATION>                                     398
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              744
<BONDS>                                          1,492
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,839
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,618
<SALES>                                          2,563
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,563
<CGS>                                            1,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   450
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 124
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    182
<INCOME-TAX>                                        75
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                106
<DISCONTINUED>                                      21
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (38)
<NET-INCOME>                                        89
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52


</TABLE>
EX-10.17



 Exhibit 10.17 
  





 
 April 20, 2015 

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL 
 Geert Cauwenbergh, Dr. Med. Sc.

 President and Chief Executive Officer 
 RXi Pharmaceuticals
Corporation 
 257 Simarano Drive, Suite 101 
 Marlborough,
Massachusetts 01752 
 Dear Dr. Cauwenbergh: 

Reference is made to the engagement agreement (the “Engagement Agreement”), dated February 25, 2015, by and between RXi
Pharmaceuticals Corporation (the “Company”) and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC (“Wainwright”), pursuant to which Wainwright shall serve as the exclusive agent, advisor or underwriter of the Company in connection
with an Offering (as defined in the Engagement Agreement). 
 The Company and Wainwright hereby agree to amend the Engagement Agreement in
order to increase the cash compensation set forth in Section A.1 of the Engagement Agreement and to delete the warrant compensation set forth in Section A.2 of the Engagement Agreement. As such, Section A.1 is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety to read as follows: 
 “Compensation. At each closing of the Offering (each, a
“Closing”), the Company shall pay to Wainwright a cash fee, or as to an underwritten Offering an underwriter discount, equal to 8% of the aggregate gross proceeds raised by the Company in each Offering (when
determining gross proceeds in this Agreement, any proceeds raised in any multiple closing transaction or “additional investment right” shall be deemed part of such determination when such component is exercised, but not including the
proceeds of any warrants issued as part of the Offering).” 
 Section A.2 is hereby deleted in its entirety. 

Except as expressly set forth above, all of the terms and conditions of the Engagement Agreement shall continue in full force and effect after
the execution of this agreement and shall not be in any way changed, modified or superseded by the terms set forth herein. Defined terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Engagement Agreement. 

This agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts and by facsimile or “.pdf” signature or otherwise, and each of such
counterparts shall be deemed an original and all of such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed as of the date first set forth above. 

 

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	H.C. WAINWRIGHT & CO., LLC
		
	By		 /s/ Mark W. Viklund

			Name: Mark W. Viklund
			Title: Chief Executive Officer


 Accepted and Agreed: 
  

			
	RXI PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION
		
	By		 /s/ Geert Cauwenbergh

			Name: Geert Cauwenbergh, Dr. Med. Sc.
			Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONALD EUGENE GARDNER, 

(AIS # 283161),

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 12-0281-CG-C

)

HEUY MACK, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff Donald Eugene Gardner 

recover nothing, and the claims made against Defendants Sheriff Huey Mack, Assistant Chief 

Deputy of Corrections Dale Byrne, Sergeant Melvin Bradley, Officer Anthony Brown, Officer 

David Aldrete, Officer John Rowell, Officer Kendrick McNeal, Officer Joshua Keers, and 

Officer Mark Boyington are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 2015. 

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00281-CG-C Document 140 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 1
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

CHRISTOPHER JONES, * 

 * No. 12-466V

 Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

 * 

v. * Filed: February 16, 2016 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; award

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * in the amount to which

 * respondent does not object. 

 Respondent. * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Mark Sadaka, Sadaka Associates LLC, Englewood, NJ, for petitioner; 

Jennifer Reynaud, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, D.C., for 

respondent. 

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

On February 5, 2016, petitioner filed a stipulation of fact for attorneys’ fees 

and costs. Previously, petitioner informally submitted a draft application for 

attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent for review. Upon review of petitioner’s 

application, respondent raised objections to certain aspects of the draft application. 

Based on subsequent discussions, petitioner amended his application to request 

$75,000.00, an amount to which respondent does not object. The Court awards 

this amount.

On July 25, 2012, Christopher Jones filed a petition for compensation

alleging that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine he received on September 30, 2010, 

caused him to suffer chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy 

(“CIDP”). Petitioner received compensation based upon the parties’ stipulation. 

 1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website. 

 
Decision, issued August 7, 2015. Because petitioner received compensation, he is

entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

Petitioner seeks a total of $75,000.00, in attorneys’ fees and costs for his

counsel. Additionally, in compliance with General Order No. 9, petitioner states 

that he incurred $300.76, in out-of-pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this 

claim. Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees 

and costs. 

After reviewing the request, the Court awards the following:

a. A lump sum of $75,000.00, in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Mark T. Sadaka, of Sadaka

Associates LLC, for attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs 

available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e).

b. A lump sum of $300.76, payable to petitioner, Christopher Jones, for 

costs incurred in pursuit of his petition.

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Dan Hoffman, at (202) 357-

6360.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

 Special Master

2