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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 758 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that the federal 

excise tax on communication services does not apply to internet access service. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 11, 2005 

Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) 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 ensure 

that the federal excise tax on communication services 

does not apply to internet access service. 

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 ‘‘Federal Internet Tax 

5 Prohibition Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EXTENSION OF FEDERAL EXCISE 

7 TAX. 

8 Section 4251 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

9 (relating to the imposition of federal excise tax on commu-
2 

•S 758 IS

1 nication services) is amended by adding at the end the 

2 following new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(e) EXCEPTION FOR INTERNET ACCESS SERV4 ICES.— 

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The tax imposed under 

6 subsection (a) shall not apply to any internet access 

7 service. 

8 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this sub9 section, the term ‘internet access service’ has the 

10 same meaning given the term in section 1104(5) of 

11 the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 

12 note).’’. 

Æ
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANGELIA SCATES COMBS

No. 219A07

(Filed 12 October 2007)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 182 N.C. App.-, 642 S.E.2d 491 (2007), finding no prejudicial error in a judgment entered 7 December 2005 by Judge John O. Craig III in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 September 2007.

*Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Amanda P. Little, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*James N. Freeman, Jr. for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
#### The Bank of Southwestern Georgia *v.*Tillman *et al.*

There being no appearance here for the defendant in error, and no evidence, by the sheriff’s return or by the record, that she was a non-resident of Sumter county; and the return showing that the bill of exceptions was served upon her attorney by leaving a copy of the same at his residence, and not otherwise, the writ of error is dismissed for insufficient service of the same. Code, 24259.

August 14, 1894.

R. L. Maynard, by brief, for plaintiff' in error.

*Writ of error dismissed.*
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO FURNISHED PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. § 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of MoSys, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Leonard Perham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James W. Sullivan, Vice President of Finance
and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of
his knowledge, that:

(1)   The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/LEONARD PERHAMLeonard Perham President and Chief Executive
OfficerMarch 17, 2008                      
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/JAMES W. SULLIVANJames W. Sullivan Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial
OfficerMarch 17, 2008

This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---



QuickLinks
#### State v. Castrejon

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 685

No. 607P06

1. Def’s (Gonzalez) NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-4) (PWC-D)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Def’s (Gonzalez) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. _

2. Allowed 01/25/07

3. Denied 01/25/07
#### Hardison *v.*The State.

The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no error in denying a new trial.

June 4, 1894.

Indictment for assault with intent to murder. Before Judge Butt. Chattahoochee superior court. March term, 1894.

Miller, Wynn & Miller, for plaintiff in error.

S. P. Gilbert, solicitor-general, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Rodriguez, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 276]

— Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), both rendered July 18, 2012, convicting him of failing to register or verify an Internet identifier pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law §§ 168-f, 168-i, 168-t; 9 NYCRR part 6057) under indictment No. 880-12, and attempted dissemination of indecent material to a minor in the first degree under superior court information No. 1574-12, respectively, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on the appeals. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6620]

Pursuant to section 7088(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2009 (Division H, Pub. L. 111-8) (“the Act”), and Department of State Delegation of Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of section 7088(c)(1) of the Act with respect to the Government of Lebanon, and I hereby waive such restriction.

                    This determination shall be reported to the Congress, and published in the                     **Federal Register.**

Dated: May 7, 2009.

Jacob L. Lew,

Deputy Secretary of State, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E9-11641 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-31-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1993
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1994
<CASH>                                             649
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,336
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,026
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,090
<PP&E>                                          10,770
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,759)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,461
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           40,893
<PREFERRED>                                        424
<COMMON>                                           290
<OTHER-SE>                                    (30,338)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,279
<SALES>                                          3,285
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,095
<CGS>                                            1,771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,842
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 732
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,250)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,250)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    128
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,091)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)
        

</TABLE>
#### Juan M. GORDON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 08-8556.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 15, 2009.

Decided: May 26, 2009.

Juan M. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Juan M. Gordon seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gordon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Gordon’s motion for transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Taylor, Appellant.

Submitted December 7, 2009;

decided December 15, 2009

Reported below, 62 AD3d 605.

Motion for assignment of counsel and waiver of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals granted only to the extent that Stanley E. Neustadter, Esq., Cardozo Law School, Criminal Appeals Clinic, 55 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10003 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2013

p0722 

# Order

Clerk July 30, 2013

146835

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

P laintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146835

COA: 310501

Dickinson CC: 10

- 004492

- FC

BRIAN ANDREW LEGAULT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of

People v Earl (Docket No. 145677) is pending on appeal before this Court and that t he

decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to

appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in

that case.
#### In the Matter of Devon Griffin, Appellant, v William D. Walsh, as Onondaga County Court Judge, Respondent.

Decided April 2, 2009

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that it does not lie *(see*CPLR 5601).

Judge Pigott taking no part.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of World Waste
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December
31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I, David Rane, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleY Act of
2002, that, to 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 results of operations
          of the Company.




May 3, 2007                                     /s/ David Rane
                                                --------------------------------
                                                David Rane
                                                Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND TRUST CORPUS OF
PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND THE RELATED
CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF DISTRIBUTABLE INCOME AND CHANGES IN TRUST CORPUS
FOR THE NINE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,194,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,194,201
<PP&E>                                      10,975,216
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,301,631
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,876,786
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,194,201
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,673,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,867,786
<SALES>                                     24,897,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,953,760
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               329,646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             24,624,114
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         24,612,114
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                24,624,114
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53


</TABLE>
Order entered October 2 , 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01106

- CR

GERARDO ISRAEL STRAU SS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 20 4th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F

- 1733722

- Q



### O RDER

We GRANT Sharita Blacknall’s motion to withdraw as appellate counsel. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to remove Sharita Blacknall as counsel of record for appellant and to send a

copy of this order and all future correspondence to Gerardo Israel Strauss, TDCJ No. 02222236,

Telford Unit, 3899 Hwy 98, New Boston, Texas 75570.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Avro Energy Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mike P. Kurtanjek,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
8th day of April, 2009.


/s/ Mike P. Kurtanjek
--------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6697

GARY JAY BEATTIE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES E. THOMPSON, Warden, at S.C.C.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief

District Judge. (CA-95-41-AM)

Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, WILKINS, Circuit Judge, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Jay Beattie, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Beattie v. Thompson, No. CA-95-41-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 19, 1995).

Because the case presents no exceptional circumstances, we deny

Appellant's motions for appointment of counsel. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0554

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

THOMAS JOSEPH SCHIFFERNS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel of 

record, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant and Appellant in 

this matter shall file a response to this motion within thirty (30) days of 

the date of this Order. The response must be served upon all counsel of 

record, including the Attorney General, the County Attorney, and the 

Appellate Defender’s Office.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give 

notice of this Order by mail to all counsel of record and to the Defendant

and Appellant at his last known address.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 3 2020

08/03/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0554
#### Holton *v.*The Western Union Telehraph Company.

The code, section 3333, fixes the filing of the declaration as the commencement of the action. Therefore, where no new cause of action is introduced by an amendment, but the amendment simply completes the statement of the cause which the pleader meant to set forth when the declaration was prepared and filed, the statute of limitations is satisfied if the declaration was filed before the action was barred. See *Augusta Railway Co.*v. *Andrews, 92 Ga.-*706, and cases thei’e cited. *Judgment reversed.*

April 23, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Action for penalty. Before Judge Smith. Telfair superior court. April term, 1893.

The message was dated February 25, 1892, and was sent from Helena to Hazelhurst, Ga. The sendee of the message was sworn as a witness, and asked where he resided at the date it was sent. To this defendant objected on the ground that it was not alleged he resided in Hazelhurst. The objection was sustained, and plaintiff thereupon amended the declaration by alleging that the sendee resided at the date of sending in Hazelhurst, and within one mile of the defendant’s office. The amendment was allowed; and defendant then demurred on the grounds, that the declaration set forth no cause *436of action without the amendment, and that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitation, there having been more than one year from the date of the original cause of action to the date of the amendment (April, 1893). The demurrer was sustained.

D. C. McLennan and T. J. Holton, for plaintiff,

Gustin, Guerry & Hall, for defendant.