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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3440 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3440

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the incentives for 
                    biodiesel and renewable diesel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 27 (legislative day, May 26), 2010

 Mr. Grassley 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 extend the incentives for 
                    biodiesel and renewable diesel.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Biodiesel Tax Incentive 
Extension Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. INCENTIVES FOR BIODIESEL AND RENEWABLE DIESEL.

    (a) Credits for Biodiesel and Renewable Diesel Used as Fuel.--
Subsection (g) of section 40A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 
2010''.
    (b) Excise Tax Credits and Outlay Payments for Biodiesel and 
Renewable Diesel Fuel Mixtures.--
            (1) Paragraph (6) of section 6426(c) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 
        2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
            (2) Subparagraph (B) of section 6427(e)(6) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 
        2009'' and inserting ``December 31, 2010''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to fuel sold or used after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

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


In connection  with the Annual  Report of Ashland Inc.  (the  "Company") on
Form  10-K for the  period  ended  September  30,  2003 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each
of the  undersigned,  James J.  O'Brien,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the
Company,  and J.  Marvin  Quin,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)      The Report  fully  complies,  in all material  respects,  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 as of and for the periods  presented in
         the report.

The foregoing certification is provided soley for purposes of complying with
the provisions of Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not
intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.

 /s/ James J. O'Brien
---------------------
James J. O'Brien
Chief Executive Officer
December 1, 2003

 /s/ J. Marvin Quin
-------------------
J. Marvin Quin
Chief Financial Officer
December 1, 2003


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to Ashland  Inc.  and will be retained by Ashland  Inc.  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**WRITTEN STATEMENTOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Apogee Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul J. Murphy, ChiefFinancial Officer and Vice President Finance of the Company, certify that, tomy knowledge on the date hereof:

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Dated: August 14, 2006 | /s/    | Paul J. Murphy                             |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Paul J. Murphy                             |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Vice President |
|                   |   | Finance (principal financial officer and   |
|                   |   | principal accounting officer)              |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certificationis being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as our exhibit tothe Form 10-QSB and shall not be deemed to be considered filed as part of theForm 10-QSB.

 

----
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3463 

To amend chapter 303 of title 46, United States Code, to provide fair 

treatment for the families of those killed on the high seas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2010 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend chapter 303 of title 46, United States Code, 

to provide fair treatment for the families of those killed 

on the high seas. 

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 ‘‘Survivors Equality Act 

5 of 2010’’. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3463 IS

1 SEC. 2. FAIR TREATMENT FOR THE FAMILIES OF THOSE 

2 KILLED ON THE HIGH SEAS. 

3 Chapter 303 of title 46, United States Code, is 

4 amended by striking section 30303 and inserting the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘§ 30303. Amount and apportionment of recovery 

7 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘non8 pecuniary loss’ means loss of care, comfort, and compan9 ionship. 

10 ‘‘(b) RECOVERY.—The recovery in an action under 

11 this chapter shall be a fair compensation for the pecuniary 

12 and nonpecuniary loss sustained by the individuals for 

13 whose benefit the action is brought. The individuals for 

14 whose benefit the action is brought may also recover dam15 ages for the decedent’s pre-death pain and suffering.’’. 

16 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

17 The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 

18 on the date of enactment of this Act and apply to any 

19 civil action filed on or after that date. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### DRESKIN v. ZINKIN et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

July 25, 1946.

Shaine & Weinrib, of New York City (Jack Gross, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Albert Paul Wollheim, of New York City, for defendants.

KNOX, District Judge.

Defendants here move for a bill of particulars pursuant to Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(e), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Plaintiff asks leave to examine defendants before answer pursuant to Rule 26(a).

The extent to which particulars will be ordered in a given case rests within the Court’s discretion. McKenna v. United States Lines, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 558. Where the allegations of a complaint are broad and indefinite, such particulars as will enable the defendant to plead intelligently may be allowed. Kraft v. R. H. Macy & Co., D.C., 3 F.R.D. 54. However, requests for particulars that call for evidence rather than ultimate facts will be denied. Prutinsky v. Commercial Union Assur. Co., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 440. They will likewise be denied with respect to the allegations of the complaint which are definite and specific, and as to which further information may be obtained by means of an examination before trial. Rosenblum v. Dingfelder, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 179, 180. If plaintiff is unable to respond to a demand for particulars because of lack of knowledge that is obtainable only through an examination before trial, of defendants, or their books and papers, she need not do so. Muldowney v. *616Seaberg Elevator Co., Inc., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 605; Knupfer v. Albertson & Co., Inc., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 257, 258. Defendants, nonetheless, are entitled to know, in order to answer the complaint, whether the contracts and agreements on which her claims are based, were oral or in writing, and in either event, the terms or substance thereof. D.L.Stern Agency, Inc., v. Mutual B. & H. & Acc. Ass’n, D.C., 43 F.Supp. 167, 170. Forstmann v. Wenner-Gren, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 775, 777. However, plaintiff is not now required to itemize the damages arising from the alleged breach of her contract. Riegel v. Hygrade Seed Co., Inc., D.C., 47 F.Supp. 290, 295.

In the light of these observations, plaintiff should furnish particulars in compliance with defendants’ requests numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 and 11. In all other respects, defendants’ motion is denied.

Plaintiff’s cross motion, which seeks to take the deposition of defendant Zinkin before answer, is denied. So far as her present showing goes, I am far from satisfied that this is an exceptional or unusual case in which there is need for discovery before answer. After answer, she can, as a matter of course, take his deposition. See Seeman v. Leibovitz, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 280.
**Exhibit 32.2****Section 1350 Certification**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of NextelCommunications, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Paul N. Saleh, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350 (as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) that, tothe best of my knowledge:     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.Date: July 28, 2005     /s/ Paul N. Saleh           Paul N. Saleh     Chief Financial Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

LUMBERFIOUS DEANDRE ARNOLD, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-911

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 26, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Frank Quesada, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Cynthia Richards, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa,

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNION SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Union Security Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, P. Bruce Camacho, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 10, 2006



/s/ P. Bruce CamachoP. Bruce Camacho President and Chief Executive
Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to U.S.C. § 1350 and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
For Immediate Release Contact: Shawn Pensoneau 

 (202) 632-7003 

NIGC Releases Notice of Inquiry and Announces Regulatory 

Review Consultation Dates 

Las Vegas, Nevada, November 17, 2010 — Today, the National Indian Gaming Commission 

(Commission) Chairwoman Tracie Stevens announced the release and publication of a Notice of Inquiry 

(NOI) that includes a government-to-government regional consultation schedule for the winter of 2011. 

This announcement confirms the Commission’s commitment to Tribes that discussions occur prior to 

initiating the rulemaking process to address the need for changes before drafting proposed rules. “The 

Commission is eager to engage in meaningful dialogue with tribes as we begin to consider the relevance 

of the Commission’s current regulations for today’s industry and what can be done to improve the 

regulations in order that the industry is better protected,” said Chairwoman Stevens. “As the primary 

regulators for the Indian gaming industry, tribes and tribal regulators are uniquely positioned to provide 

the NIGC with relevant information and feedback. We look forward to the discussion.” 

A Notice of Inquiry will be published in the Federal Register mid-November 2010 and is designed to 

inform the public that the NIGC is conducting a comprehensive review of all regulations promulgated to 

implement the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The NOI requests input regarding which 

regulations need revision and what process should be utilized to revise them. The regulatory review 

process allows the Commission to take a fresh look at its rules in order to determine whether changes 

are necessary to more effectively implement IGRA. 

Consistent with Executive Order 13,175 entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments” and to gather the most information possible regarding the regulation review, the 

Commission will hold eight consultations during January and February of 2011. 

The Commission has approved a consultation schedule at the following locations, beginning in January 

and finishing in February of 2011: 

January 11, 2011 U.S. Grant Hotel in San Diego, California 

January 12, 2011 Cache Creek Resort in Sacramento, California 

January 14, 2011 Little Creek Resort in Shelton, Washington 

January 18, 2011 Riverwind Casino in Norman, Oklahoma 

January 20, 2011 Hyatt Regency Tamaya Resort & Spa in Albuquerque, New Mexico 

January 24, 2011 Department of the Interior South Auditorium in Washington, DC 

February 1, 2011 Best Western Ramkota Hotel in Rapid City, South Dakota 

February 3, 2011 Hollywood Hard Rock Hotel and Resort in Hollywood, Florida 

All information on the regulatory review, including the Federal Register notice can be found by visiting 

our website at www.nigc.gov. 

If you have questions or need additional information prior to the meetings, please contact Rita Homa, at 

(202) 632-7003. 

The NIGC is an independent regulatory agency established within the Department of the Interior pursuant to the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. 

###
# Tier C Surveillance
#### Faruk IBRAHIM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, CCE; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-6513.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2006.

Decided: June 21, 2006.

Faruk Ibrahim, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Faruk Ibrahim, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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(e)(2) (2000). A prisoner sat*343isfies 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 Ibrahim 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.*
EXHIBIT 23.2

               NOTICE REGARDING LACK OF CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN

     On May 9, 2002, The Fairchild Corporation (the "Company") dismissed Arthur
Andersen LLP as its independent auditors and retained Ernst & Young LLP as its
new auditors. Ernst & Young audited the financial statements of the Company as
of and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 and issued their report with
respect thereto. However, after reasonable efforts, the Company has been unable
to obtain from Arthur Andersen a reissued audit report with respect to the
financial statements of the Company as of and for the fiscal years ended June
30, 2000 and June, 2001 (the fiscal 2000 and 2001 financial statements). In
accordance with recently-adopted regulations of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Company has filed with this Annual Report on Form 10-K a copy of
the previously-issued audit report dated September 7, 2001 of Arthur Andersen
with respect to the fiscal 2000 and 2001 financial statements. Because this
Annual Report on Form 10-K is incorporated by reference into the Company's
previously filed registration statements (File Nos. 35-27317, 33-21698,
33-06183, 333-49779, and 333-62037), it is deemed to be a new registration
statement relating to the securities offered therein. After reasonable efforts,
the Company has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's written consent to the
incorporation by reference of its September 7, 2001 audit report into those
registration statements. As a result, Arthur Andersen may not have any liability
under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act1 for any untrue statements of a
material fact contained in the fiscal 2000 and 2001 financial statements or any
omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, persons
acquiring securities under those registration statements may be unable to assert
a claim against Arthur Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1   Section 11(a) of the Securities Act provides that if part of a registration
    statement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of a
    material fact, or omits a material fact required to be stated therein or
    necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person
    acquiring a security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is
    proved that at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth
    or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an accountant who has
    consented to be named as having certified any part of the registration
    statement or as having prepared any report for use in connection with the
    registration statement.
Exhibit 4(a)11

ENTERGY CORPORATION

AND

DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Trustee

 

SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE NO. 1

Dated as of December 20, 2005

THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE No. 1 (this "Supplemental Indenture No. 1"), dated as of December 20, 2005, is between ENTERGY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, a banking corporation of the State of New York, as trustee (the "Trustee").

R E C I T A L S

WHEREAS, the Company has executed and delivered to the Trustee an Indenture dated as of December 1, 2002, between the Company and the Trustee (the "Base Indenture"), as supplemented by the Officer's Certificate, dated December 19, 2002, Officer's Certificate, dated March 27, 2003, the Officer's Certificate, dated March 27, 2003, Officer's Certificate, dated May 14, 2003, Officer's Certificate, dated September 24, 2003, Officer's Certificate, dated November 20, 2003, and Officer's Certificate dated November 20, 2003, and, together with this Supplemental Indenture No. 1, the "Indenture"), providing for the issuance from time to time of one or more series of the Securities;

WHEREAS, Section 1201(f) of the Base Indenture provides for the Company and the Trustee to enter into an indenture supplemental to the Base Indenture without the consent of any Holders to establish the forms or terms of Securities of any series as permitted by Section 201 and Section 301 of the Base Indenture;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 301 of the Base Indenture, the Company wishes to provide for the issuance of a new series of Securities to be known as its Senior Notes, Series A , initially due February 17, 2011 (the "Senior Notes"), the form and terms of such Senior Notes and the terms, provisions and conditions thereof to be set forth as provided in this Supplemental Indenture No. 1; and

WHEREAS, the Company has requested that the Trustee execute and deliver this Supplemental Indenture No. 1, and all requirements necessary to make this Supplemental Indenture No. 1 a valid, binding and enforceable instrument in accordance with its terms, and to make the Senior Notes, when executed by the Company and authenticated and delivered by the Trustee, the valid, binding and enforceable obligations of the Company, have been done and performed, and the execution and delivery of this Supplemental Indenture No. 1 has been duly authorized in all respects;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

ARTLICLE 1