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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1594 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate lead oxide, antimony, and sulfuric acid as taxable chemicals under the Superfund excise 

taxes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2023 

Mr. MEUSER (for himself and Mr. MOOLENAAR) 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 eliminate 

lead oxide, antimony, and sulfuric acid as taxable chemicals under the Superfund excise 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘USA Batteries Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

6 Congress finds the following: 

7 (1) The Superfund fee established in Public 

8 Law 117–58 makes American manufacturing less 

9 competitive by imposing a tax on chemicals used in 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1594 IH

1 domestic battery production that is not levied on im2 ported batteries. 

3 (2) America’s lead battery industry has a man4 ufacturing capacity of more than 165 GWh, a $23.6 

5 billion domestic economic impact annually, and cre6 ates more than 25,000 direct jobs in 38 States. 

7 (3) Lead batteries have a 99 percent recycling 

8 rate and are a truly sustainable energy storage tech9 nology. 

10 (4) Lead batteries are critical for many sectors, 

11 including defense, transportation, logistics, tele12 communications, and energy generation. 

13 (5) Increased taxes on domestic production cre14 ate a disadvantage for American manufacturers and 

15 reduce the global competitiveness of the domestic 

16 lead battery industry by increasing the costs of key 

17 raw materials. 

18 SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF LEAD OXIDE, ANTIMONY, AND 

19 SULFURIC ACID AS TAXABLE CHEMICALS 

20 UNDER SUPERFUND EXCISE TAXES. 

21 The table in section 4661(b) of the Internal Revenue 

22 Code of 1986, as amended by Public Law 117–58, is 

23 amended by striking the rows relating to lead oxide, anti24 mony, and sulfuric acid. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-37700) pertaining to theGaiam, Inc. 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Gaiam, Inc. 1999Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated February 19, 2004, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Gaiam, Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2003, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 
|   | /s/  Ernst & Young LLP |
|--------|---------------------------------|

 

Denver, Colorado

March 15, 2006

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
These schedules contain summary financial information extracted from Motor Club
of America's Consolidated Balance Sheets for the period ending December 31, 1998
and the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the twelve months then ended
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        69,594,904
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                     361,038
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              75,951,241
<CASH>                                       2,773,427
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                          19,234,277
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       8,708,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             131,012,776
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             58,335,143
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         30,733,144
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                              3,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,058,215
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,765,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               131,012,776
<PREMIUMS>                                  53,175,663
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          4,304,507
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              28,545
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 171,171
<BENEFITS>                                  36,479,591
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                 13,375,221
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         2,105,668
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,719,406
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,463,615
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,255,791
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,255,791
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.01
<RESERVE-OPEN>                              50,246,778
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                         38,093,225
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                            3,123,037
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                          12,506,521
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                            20,621,376
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                             58,335,143
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                      3,123,037
        

</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

__________ _____________ _ No. 14

- 11895 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:13

- cr - 00222

- CEH

- DAB

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus DAMION RASHAAD CARDER, Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ ____ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (March 23, 2015) Before MARCUS, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges
. PER CURIAM : Meghan Ann Collins, appointed counsel for Damion Carder, has moved to withdr aw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our

Case: 14-11895 Date Filed: 03/23/2015 Page: 1 of 22 independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Carder’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED
.

Case: 14-11895 Date Filed: 03/23/2015 Page: 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CEO PURSUANT TO**

 

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

**As AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the reportof Gaiam, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,2005, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Jirka Rysavy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

 

(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

Date:  March 13,2006

 
|   | /s/ Jirka Rysavy          |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   | Jirka Rysavy              |
|   | Chairman of the Board and |
|   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

----
! " #$%&'

#()*+**+)*	)$*$#	*

,


----------"----------

#

".
















$"
(/

#(/


01 .
/


!
 ".

1 .
/

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#2. ,


 ,

,
3 
 !"" ,
  
#$

%&'
 ,

..2".
.2"
4"
 
0
"


,,"

" 4"
5 
064

07

.


46,
#

"

$..""2 " #$

%88 9,"

" ,.9: ,
206"
.
"
,#;%3


,
"

""
,#$%&''&9,

<
,,
6
22040
9

IT IS ORDERED,,
."/

+()+ ;	(*+,


="2
 "06.2"
"


.2".
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  .,"is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

+<
2",
7"
2
9002"",
> .

 ",00
.



IT IS SO ORDERED



/

Judge’s signature

+


/

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

CALVIN BUDDY JORDAN 12-0127-WS

October 16, 2015

✔

✔

February 11, 2016 s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Jordan moves for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on retroactive application of USSG

Amendment 782. The motion fails for at least two independent reasons. First, the sentencing hearing in this case was

conducted on October 8, 2015, more than 11 months after Amendment 782's effective date of November 1, 2014. In

other words, Amendment 782 was in effect at the time of Jordan's sentencing hearing, such that he would have received

any benefit to which he was entitled by that amendment during that proceeding. Second, Amendment 782 is

inapplicable in Jordan's case because his base offense level was calculated not by reference to the drug quantity table

found at U.S.S.G. 2D1.1 (which was amended by Amendment 782), but by reference to U.S.S.G. 2A1.2 (which fixes a

base offense level of 38 for offenses involving second degree murder). Amendment 782 did not alter the 2A1.2 base

offense level. Because he was sentenced after Amendment 782 went into effect and his base offense level was not

calculated using the 2D1.1 drug quantity table or otherwise affected by that amendment, Jordan is ineligible for

sentencing relief under section 3582(c)(2).

Case 1:12-cr-00127-WS-C Document 73 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 1
Judgment 1

AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations (11075)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

V. (For Revocation of Supervised Release)

THOMAS HENRY SANCHEZ

a/k/a Thomas Henry Sanchez, Jr. CASE NUMBER: 1:10-CR-00131-001

USM NUMBER: 11506-003

THE DEFENDANT: Fred Tiemann, Esquire

Defendant's Attorney

admitted guilt to violation of supervision condition: special condition as set forth in the petition 

dated 4/28/2016.

was found in violation of supervision condition: ___

Violation Number Nature of Violation

Date violation

Occurred

Special Condition Technical

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed 

pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant has not violated condition(s) and is discharged as to such violation(s) 

condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this 

district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, 

and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.

May 12, 2016

Date of Imposition of Judgment

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

May 16, 2016

Date

X

Case 1:10-cr-00131-CG-B Document 64 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 2
Judgment 2

AO 245D (Rev. 12/03) Judgment in a Criminal Case for Revocations: Sheet 2 - Imprisonment

Defendant: THOMAS HENRY SANCHEZ, a/k/a Thomas Henry Sanchez, Jr.

Case Number: 1:10-CR-00131-001

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be 

imprisoned for a total term of TWELVE (12) MONTHS.

The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons: 

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

at .m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of 

Prisons:

before 2 p.m. on .

as notified by the United States Marshal.

as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

Defendant delivered on to at __________________

with a certified copy of this judgment.

 UNITED STATES MARSHAL 

By _________________________________

 Deputy U.S. Marshal

X

Case 1:10-cr-00131-CG-B Document 64 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1 Certificate 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 U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the
period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan Gold, President and Chief
Executive Officer of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc., 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 U.S.
  Neurosurgical, Inc.  /s/ Alan
  GoldAlan GoldPresident
  and Chief Executive OfficerMarch 30,
  2007
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Charles G. Cooper, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of Bay View Capital Corporation;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant
and we 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting. Date: May 10, 2005 /s/ Charles G. CooperCharles G. Cooper
President and Chief
Executive Officer 34
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Bay National Corporation
(the "Company") each certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and information contained
in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/Hugh W. Mohler
------------------------
Hugh W. Mohler
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
March 23, 2004


/s/ Mark A. Semanie
------------------------
Mark A. Semanie
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 22, 2004

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 21.1

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF NASH FINCH COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

      Subsidiary                                         State of
      Corporation                                      Incorporation
      -----------                                      -------------
<S>                                                    <C>
Erickson's Diversified Corporation                       Wisconsin
Edina, Minnesota

GTL Truck Lines, Inc.                                    Nebraska
Norfolk, Nebraska

Hinky Dinky Supermarkets, Inc.                           Nebraska
Edina, Minnesota

Nash Finch Funding Corp.                                 Delaware
Edina, Minnesota

Piggly Wiggly Northland Corporation                      Minnesota
Edina, Minnesota

Super Food Services, Inc.                                Delaware
Dayton, Ohio

T.J. Morris Company                                       Georgia
Statesboro, Georgia
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          47,445
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,029
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               195,657
<PP&E>                                         126,197
<DEPRECIATION>                                 111,034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          988,093
<BONDS>                                        628,982
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          331,957
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,072,776)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,820
<SALES>                                      3,358,161
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,358,161
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,227,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              56,745
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 73,433
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             73,433
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    73,433
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
#### ANICOLA et ux. v. J. C. PENNY CO., Inc.

No. 11140.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

July 9, 1951.

Jos. Sternberger, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

J. B. H. Carter, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

McGRANERY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs are husband and wife. The wife-plaintiff alleges injuries caused by defendant’s negligence, claiming the sum of $3,000 as damages, and the husband-plaintiff claims damages in the amount of $1,500 for loss of consortium. The defendant moves to dismiss on the ground of the lack of the necessary jurisdictional amount.

Under Rule 2228(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, 12 P.S.Appendix, which virtually repromulgated the provi*912sions of the former Act of May 8, 1895, P.L. 54, 12 P.S. § 1621, it is provided that “If an injury, not resulting in death, is inflicted upon the person of a wife, and causes of action therefor accrue to the wife and also■ to' her husband, they shall be enforced in one action brought by the husband and the wife.” Consequently, plaintiffs contend, the $3,000 claimed by the wife must be added to the $1,500 claimed by the husband, to constitute the jurisdictional amount in excess of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs, as required by the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332.

But the cited Rule is purely procedural. Its purpose is to' avoid inconvenience and multiplicity of actions. Accord-, ingly, while the claims of the husband and wife are brought in one action, their rights of action are not merged. Fisher v. Diehl, 156 Pa.Super. 476, 40 A.2d 912. And where several plaintiffs assert separate and distinct demands in a single suit, the amount involved in each separate controversy must be of the requisite amount to be within the jurisdiction of the district court, and those amounts cannot be added together to satisfy jurisdictional requirements. Pinel v. Pinel, 240 U.S. 594, 36 S.Ct. 416, 60 L.Ed. 817; Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U.S. 583, 59 S.Ct. 744, 83 L.Ed. 1001.

The action of the husband-plaintiff, therefore, claiming $1,500, must be dismissed. The action of the wife-plaintiff, claiming $3,000, is likewise defective for lack of the necessary jurisdictional amount. However, alleging a claim for $3,000, instead of alleging a claim in excess of $3,000 by the merest amount, must be taken as an oversight, especially in view of the fact that the allegations of injury could support the latter claim. The Judicial Code, 28 U.S. C.A. § 1653, provides that “Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended * * *.” Accordingly the wife-plaintiff will be permitted to amend her complaint in order to set forth the requisite jurisdictional amount.

It further appears that diversity of citizenship is not properly pleaded, in that the citizenship of the parties is not affirmatively stated. An amendment will likewise be permitted to cure this defect.