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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 287 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the full deduction 

allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production 

activities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 21, 2009 

Mr. INHOFE 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 provide 

for the full deduction allowable with respect to income 

attributable to domestic production activities, 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. ACCELERATION OF PHASEIN OF DOMESTIC 

4 PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES DEDUCTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 199 of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to allowance 

7 of deduction) is amended to read as follows: 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 287 IS

1 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—There shall be 

2 allowed as a deduction an amount equal to 9 percent of 

3 the lesser of— 

4 ‘‘(1) the qualified production activities income 

5 of the taxpayer for the taxable year, or 

6 ‘‘(2) taxable income (determined without regard 

7 to this section) for the taxable year.’’. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (2) of 

9 section 199(d) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘sub10 section (a)(1)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (a)(2)’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 December 31, 2008. 

14 SEC. 2. RESTORATION OF FULL DOMESTIC PRODUCTION 

15 ACTIVITIES DEDUCTION FOR OIL RELATED 

16 PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 401 of the Energy Im18 provement and Extension Act of 2008 is repealed. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE; ADMINISTRATION OF CODE.— 

20 (1) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by 

21 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning 

22 after December 31, 2008. 

23 (2) ADMINISTRATION OF CODE.—The Internal 

24 Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and adminis25 tered as if section 401 of the Energy Improvement 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 287 IS

1 and Extension Act of 2008, and the amendments 

2 made by such section, had not been enacted. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DIANA RUIZ ESPARZA, 

 

 Appellant,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00259-CV

Appeal from the

210th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2012-DCV-02870)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until March 12, 2014. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Enrique Lopez, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare 

the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before March 12, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### GUO QIANG YE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-76126.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 5, 2009.

Filed May 11, 2009.

Keung Wong, Esq., Law Offices of Keung Wong, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of *572Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Virginia Lum Fax, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, O’SCANNLAIN and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Guo Qiang Ye, a citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status.

When an alien marries a U.S. citizen during removal proceedings and seeks adjustment of status, the immigration judge may investigate the bona fides of the marriage even if the government already has approved the 1-130 visa application. An immigration judge has authority over applications for relief under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1240.1(a)(l)(ii), 1245.2(a)(1). An 1-130 visa does not automatically establish the bona fides of a marriage in the context of removal proceedings. *See Agyeman v. INS,*296 F.3d 871, 879 (9th Cir.2002) (‘While an [approved] I 130 establishes *eligibility*for status, the Attorney General—or in the context of deportation proceedings, the IJ—must still decide to accord the status.” (emphasis added)).

“This court retains jurisdiction over petitions for review that raise colorable constitutional claims or questions of law.” *Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales,*466 F.3d 747, 748 (9th Cir.2006) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)). In the absence of constitutional claims or questions of law, however, the immigration judge’s decision to deny petitioner’s application for adjustment of status is a discretionary determination that is unreviewable. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Bazua-Cota,*466 F.3d at 748-49.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit      10**
**-ll**

**RESTRICTED      STOCK AGREEMENT**

**ANALYSTS      INTERNATIONAL CORP.**

**2004      EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN**

**Grant      of Restricted Stock Award**

**Vesting      of Restricted Stock**

----

**Miscellaneous**

**Employment-at-Will**

**Securities      Law Compliance**

**Mergers,      Recapitalizations, Stock Splits, Etc.**
** **

**Shares      Reserved**

**Withholding      Taxes**

**2004      Equity Incentive Plan**

**Lockup      Period Limitation**

**Blue      Sky Limitation**

**Accounting      Compliance**

----

**Stock      Legend**

**Scope      of Agreement**

**Arbitration**

|   | **ANALYSTS                    INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION** |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                      |
|   |                                                      |
| By     |  __________________________________                  |
| Its    |  __________________________________                  |
|   |                                                      |
|   |  __________________________________                  |
|   |  Participant                                         |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Allen, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 872]

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered November 20, 2012, resentencing defendant, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 57 years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

The resentencing proceeding imposing a term of postrelease supervision was neither barred by double jeopardy nor otherwise unlawful *(see People v Lingle,*16 NY3d 621 [2011]). Concur— Tom, J.E, Friedman, Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7151
ALVON ALLEN THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-02-426-1) Submitted: December 9, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alvon Allen Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alvon Allen Thomas, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing for failure to file in the proper court his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We grant Thomas’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court, but modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice to Thomas’ right to refile in the proper court. See Thomas v. United States , No. CA-02-426-1 (M.D.N.C. filed July 2, 2002, entered July 5, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), each of the undersigned officers of KT Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: June 27, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ JOONG-SOO NAM                                
|                     |  |  |  | Joong-Soo Nam                                    
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer            
|                     |  | 
|Dated: June 27, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ HAING MIN KWON                               
|                     |  |  |  | Haing Min Kwon                                   
|                     |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 has been provided to KT Corporation and will be retained by KT Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David M. Harnett, Appellant.

Submitted December 6, 2010;

decided December 14, 2010

Motion by New York State Defenders Association for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
**Radio Program Review - Program Manager/Lead**

**Checklist #1**

**For the Radio Program Review, you will need to have the following items available for review:**

**STATE OFFICE RADIO PROGRAM MANAGER/LEAD**

Objective: To identify findings in LMR and radio spectrum management specifically related to roles/responsibilities of state radio program lead.

**Key Code:	Y= Yes	N= No 	NR = Not Reviewed**

Radio Program	1	Revised May 2021

# image1.png
U.S. FOREST SERVICE URGES PUBLIC VISITING (NAME OF NATIONAL FOREST OR GRASSLAND) TO LEAVE DRONES AT HOME THIS (DAY OF WEEK) TO ENABLE AGENCY TO SAFELY PERFORM (TYPE OF MISSION, I.E. AERIAL DETECTION SURVEY, SPRAYING, ETC). 

	The U.S. Forest Service is urging members of the public who are planning to visit the (name) National (Forest or Grassland) on (day), (month) (date) to leave their drones at home to enable the agency to safely perform (type of mission, i.e. aerial detection survey, spraying, etc.). 

A U.S. Forest Service (airplane or helicopter) will be flying approximately (#) feet above ground level to perform this mission. That is approximately (or close to) the same altitude that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Safety Guidelines instruct members of the public to fly drones for hobby or recreation purposes at, which creates the potential for an accident.

The U.S. Forest Service needs to perform the (type of mission, i.e. aerial detection survey, spraying, etc.) to (explain why the mission is needed).  

	“It would be a real tragedy if a member of the public was flying a drone for fun while the U.S. Forest Service (airplane or helicopter) was performing the (type of mission, i.e. aerial detection survey, spraying, etc.) and either collided with the (airplane or helicopter) or caused the pilot to be distracted and crash, resulting in serious injuries or fatalities,” said (Name), (Title), with the U.S. Forest Service. “We are asking the public to work with us to help prevent that from happening.”

	The U.S. Forest Service urges members of the public to contact the local Ranger District where they want to fly a drone beforehand to see if any agency natural resource management missions are planned during the time they want to fly and if so, to please plan on flying at another time or location. Contact information for all U.S. Forest Service offices in the U.S. is located at www.fs.fed.us in the “Find a Forest or Grassland” section. Information about U.S. Forest Service natural resource management flights is also available on several websites, including the FAA PilotWeb site https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotWeb/http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr_map_ims/html/ and the Defense Internet Notam Service (DINS) https://www.notams.faa.gov/dinsQueryWeb/

###
**Exhibit
      32.1**





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 Kaire Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Westlund,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
      to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:





(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/
      Steve Westlund


Steve
      Westlund


Chief
      Executive Officer, President


and
      Chief
      Accounting Officer


November
      16, 2006
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **748 5** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , P laintiff

- Appell ee ,
v. JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR. , Defendant

– Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the We st ern District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 4:98

- c r - 00102

- MR

- 1; 1 : 1 0

- c v - 0 0 1 97

- MR )

Submitted : April 28, 2011 Decided: May 27, 2011

Before MOTZ and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirm ed by unpublished per curiam opinion
. Joseph Marion Head, Jr., Appellant Pro Se . Thomas Richard Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney , Asheville , North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit
.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Marion He a d, Jr., a ppeals the district court ’s order dismissing this action as improvidently filed and docketed . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons s tated by the district court. United States v. Head , Nos. 4:98

- cr - 00102

- MR

- 1; 1:10

- cv - 00197

- MR (W.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2010) . We deny the motion s for appointment of counsel and for copies of records and briefs and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contention s are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7076

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TIMNAH RUDISILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (CR-01-48; CA-05-212-1)

Submitted: November 23, 2005 Decided: December 20, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timnah K. Rudisill, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Timnah Rudisill seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Rudisill has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 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
#### LINCOLN ELECTRIC CO. v. LINDE AIR PRODUCTS CO.

Civ. No. 23448.

District Court, N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Oct. 4, 1946.

Ashley M. VanDuzer and J. F. Oberlin, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

*68H. J. Crawford and P. L. Holden, both of Cleveland, Ohio, Cahill, Gordon, Zachry & Reindel, of New York City, and Richard Russell Wolfe, of Chicago, 111., for defendant.

JONES, District Judge.

The complaint in this case is for damages for infringement of a patent now expired. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a bill of particulars. The motion to dismiss is grounded upon the fact that no item of special damage is specifically stated under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 9(g), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and this being a suit for special damages, no cause of action is stated.

The plaintiff now offers to amend its complaint. In view of the liberality expressed in Civil Rule 15, leave will be granted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

The plaintiff has offered to furnish the particulars requested under Items 1 to 5 inclusive.

Bills of particulars will not be granted which require a party to interpret processes or distinguish features of a patent or disclose matters of evidence. The purpose of a bill of particulars is to fully inform the defendant so that it can answer.

Items 6, 7, 8 and 11 will be denied and Items 9 and 10 will be granted. It is so ordered.
. . . . 

: 

-...:.o 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Homreblo Oanptoa White, Pa@ 3 

All moh 

$*piid tram th8 

a 

s 

prom6 olafa an4 l eeeunto l ball 

frloorr* Salerr Fund unlrrr abhorwise protldea boroln.” 

Ordlnarlly bond prmiuu l e mwdloard in tb fongoin l tatute, l r a 

P 

aid In adranoo eorering 0 period Bi one 

r 

The l ta ta ta 

+z%080be* 3, 1941. 

Art1010 3699) aa l mn6e6 boouo erreetrhea the County TMaouru, County 

Auditor, County Corioolonrrr ad tbr Gouaty School Suporlabmdent -a0 their orrlalal bond0 ia tie year 19U, arid 

oktot l aMorlr;lsig thr l be** nrwd ofrlola 

# 

l to aiarge 

neoeooory bond prmdaa8 to the oounty rs&$ teotire. Thenfore, it lo our oplnloa t&t tbr oounty oannot logallt reirburoo the rouat~ ottlolrla heretorore untIened tar bond 

pmipru p0ia br th rar th4 f-0~ 19u. 

The l ta tut(Art1010 e 3699) use l rtarblro w&n ~$4 

orrioialr ma0 tti0wir orrioirl bona0 ror tbo yw 19u. Bare 

l fo r í, them are no root0 berore uo thot *da lndloate t&t 

00id l 0wf otrloialo 00hipiiaa dth th6 p~otf~i~no 0r eaid 

otatute ii3 pnaentiry their l pplloatiwo to tk Coml.80io~rot 

Wart l OaOTO@a by the County Aobltor 08 80 whether fwdr 

were available in ths oirlo8rat Selary Irand ror paw& ol 

ouch l xpenoea, l trtind; tbr kfnd, prob8blo l amnt or oxpond1 8~0 l Ad th0 AOtIa OOfitor ~ l Xp e~Oer0 Or bOAd prdw 80 k 

paare on, praaoktinrb ma allomd by tha Commlooi~~~era* 

CouPt. It will ba aokd that the l tatuto makar ao prwlnlon 

for a reiund or relaburoamnt ier bond psw&mo paid by said 

00kwt 0rri0m0. Unleom or;& oountx ortioidr oo~plloa ritb 

the protlrlonr ot the 8tatutr ao herototorr aentlenti, lb 

I# our oplanion t&t t&o oounty aamot l*gallr relmbuxwe tb, 

oounty orrielalr ror hod pnmlm paid br thorn.. In the r& 

l o na o or l 

Y 

faoto to the mntrer'f, wo l ooam tbrt the l owty 

orrlolalo d d not oemplr with the protlolono of Artiolr 3699, 

l up r. eIf we ore oarroot in thim l mmptloa, pu am reopaotfully a&lad bbat the $oPint 

nl~buroo the ooentf oiflela i 

*arUM now lo&ally NlUIad or 

l for bond predw paid bl tboa 

for the year 19c4.
**Exhibit 23.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS**

We hereby consent to the references in this Form 10-K ofPlains Exploration & Production Company, as well as in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in such Form 10-K, to our reserve reports to the interest of Plains Exploration & Production Company and itssubsidiaries (collectively the “Company”), relating to the estimated quantities of certain of the Company’s proved reserves of oil and gas and present values thereof for certain periods. We also consent to the incorporation byreference of such reports in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-102627, No. 333-107990, No. 333-115628, No. 333-117425 and No. 333-145004) and Forms S-3 (No. 333-121452 and No. 333-141110) of PlainsExploration & Production Company. 

 

Houston, Texas 

February 27, 2008