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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3188 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3188

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an investment tax 
                  credit for biomass heating property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 2010

 Mrs. Shaheen (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Begich, and Mr. Crapo) 
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 an investment tax 
                  credit for biomass heating property.

    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 ``American Renewable Biomass Heating 
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT FOR BIOMASS HEATING PROPERTY.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 48(a)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining energy property) is amended by 
striking ``or'' at the end of clause (vi), by inserting ``or'' at the 
end of clause (vii), and by inserting after clause (vii) the following 
new clause:
                            ``(viii) biomass heating property, 
                        including boilers or furnaces which operate at 
                        output efficiencies greater than 75 percent and 
                        which provide thermal energy in the form of 
                        heat, hot water, or steam for space heating, 
                        air conditioning, domestic hot water, or 
                        industrial process heat, but only with respect 
                        to periods ending before January 1, 2014,''.
    (b) 30 Percent Credit.--Clause (i) of section 48(a)(2)(A) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' at the end 
of subclause (III) and by inserting after subclause (IV) the following 
new subclause:
                                    ``(V) energy property described in 
                                paragraph (3)(A)(viii), and''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to periods after the date of the enactment of this Act, in 
taxable years ending after such date, under rules similar to the rules 
of section 48(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on 
the day before the date of the enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation 
Act of 1990).
                                 <all>
```
February 7, 1997 

Genevieve Campbell 

Chairperson of the Cahto Tribe 

Laytonville Rancheria 

P.O. Box 1239 

Laytonville, ~alifornia 95454 

Cherie Smith 

Secretary/Treasurer Cahto Tribe 

Laytonville Rancheria 

P.O. Box 1239 

Laytonville, California 95454 

RE: Request for Extension of Time and Notice of Appeal of 

December 16, 1996 Violation Notice No. 96-17 

Dear Ms. Campbell and Ms. Smith: 

"Bd By letter dated January 15, 1997, and received by the 

National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) on January 15, 1997, the 

Cahto Tribe (Tribe) requested a 10 day extension of time to file 

a Notice of Appeal of Notice of Violation No. 96-17. The Notice 

of Violation was issued on December 16, 1996 by NIGC Chairman 

Harold Monteau. In addition, by letter dated January 29, 1997, 

the Tribe filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal the December 16, 

1996 violation notice. For the following reasons, the Request 

for Extension of Time is denied and the Notice of Appeal is 

dismissed as untimely. 

NIGC regulations governing appeals require that respondents 

submit "a notice of appeal within thirty (30) days after service 

of a notice of violation ..." 25 C.F.R. Sec. 577.3(a)(l). 

Service of a Notice of a Violation may be completed personally, 

by facsimile or by registered or certified mail, return receipt 

requested. 25 C.F.R. Sec. 577.6(b). In this case, service of 

the Notice of Violation was completed by facsimile on December 

16, 1996. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due on January 15, 

1997. 

On January 15, 1997, the Tribe filed a request for an 

extension of time to file a notice of appeal. NIGC regulations 

governing appeals state in pertinent part: "The presiding 

official may extend the time for filing or serving any document -IIN..& except a notice of appeal. 25 C.F.R. Sec. 577.6(f)(l)(emphasis 

1441 L STREET, N.W. 9TH FLOOR WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 TEL.: 202-632-7003 FAX: 202-632-7066 
added) . 

4 Unlike extensions of time to file other documents, the NIGC 

has no authority to grant the ~ribe's request for an extension of 

time to file a notice of appeal. Therefore, the request for a 

ten (10) day extension of time is denied. 

Since the Tribe's request for extension of time is denied, 

the Tribe's Notice of Appeal was due on January 15, 1997. Thus, 

the Tribe's Notice of Intent to Appeal and Request for a Hearing, 

filed on January 29, 1997, are dismissed as untimely. 

Even assuming the Commission did have authority to grant the 

ten (10) day extension, the notice of appeal is still untimely. 

With the ten day (10) day extension, the notice of appeal was due 

on January 27, 1997. As outlined above, the Notice of Appeal and 

Request for Hearing was received by facsimile on ~anuar~-29, 

1997. 

For the above reasons, the NIGC affirms the decision of the 

Chairman to issue Notice of violation No. 96-17. This decision 

is final for the Commission. As to whether a civil fine will 

result from the notice of violation, that matter is within the 

Enforcement Division of the NIGC. 

Sincerely,
June 21, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOE AND ABE ENTERPRISES, LLC, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00413-CV V.

ENCORE BANK, N.A., Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Encore Bank, N.A., 

signed, January 11, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. The record shows that 

the judgment is not final. We therefore order the appeal DISMISSED.

We order appellant, Joe and Abe Enterprises, LLC, to pay all costs incurred in this 

appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
MOTION DOCKET

96-1628.

#### Garnett v. Public Storage.

Cuyahoga App. No. 67458. On statement of fees and costs. Fees and costs granted in the amount requested, $1,840.63.
#### Jamie Lobello, Respondent, v New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 901]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (Norman W. Seiter, Jr., J.), entered April 12, 2012. The order, inter alia, denied that part of the motion of defendant to dismiss the complaint with respect to the first cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the insurance policy issued by defendant, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (NYCM), provided coverage for the subject loss. Thereafter, NYCM moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was not timely commenced. NYCM appeals from that part of the order denying without prejudice its motion with respect to the first cause of action. Initially, we note that, contrary to plaintiffs contention, the order is appealable despite the fact that Supreme Court denied in part NYCM’s motion without prejudice to renew *(see Gruet v Care Free Hous. Div. of Kenn-Schl Enters.,*305 AD2d 1060, 1060 [2003]). Regarding the merits, we conclude that the motion “was properly denied as premature in light of the incomplete state of discovery, including the lack of any depositions” *(Ali v Effron,*106 AD3d 560, 560 [2013]). Plaintiff is entitled to discovery on, inter alia, whether NYCM should be estopped from invoking the statute of limitations defense. Plaintiff failed to preserve for our review *1288his alternative contention that the date of loss under the policy is not the date that the theft occurred, but instead the date that the cause of action against NYCM accrued *(see Fabozzi v Lexington Ins. Co.,*601 F3d 88 [2010]; *cf. Klawiter v CGU/ OneBeacon Ins. Group,*27 AD3d 1155 [2006]; *Costello v Allstate Ins. Co.,*230 AD2d 763 [1996]). Thus, we need not address that issue at this stage of the proceedings. Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Garni and Lindley, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statement of operations, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                             240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,063
<ALLOWANCES>                                       524
<INVENTORY>                                     30,920
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,405
<PP&E>                                          33,989
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,363
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,155
<BONDS>                                         16,819
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           297
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,746
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,333
<SALES>                                         87,501
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,501
<CGS>                                           74,321
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,594)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (597)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,997)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,997)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.83)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31(c)

CERTIFICATIONS

** 
I, Hugh T. McDonald, certify that:  
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Entergy Arkansas, Inc.;  
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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and 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)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   
c) 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   
d) 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 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.

 

		/s/ Hugh T. McDonald			

**
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 24


                            POWER OF ATTORNEY

         Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended
                            December 31, 2001


     The undersigned directors of the following companies (each respectively the
"Company")

         Company                                  State of Incorporation

  AEP Generating Company                                  Ohio
  Appalachian Power Company                             Virginia
  Central Power and Light Company                        Texas
  Columbus Southern Power Company                         Ohio
  Kentucky Power Company                                Kentucky
  Ohio Power Company                                      Ohio
  Public Service Company of Oklahoma                    Oklahoma
  Southwestern Electric Power Company                   Delaware
  West Texas Utilities Company                           Texas

do hereby constitute and appoint E. LINN DRAPER,  JR., ARMANDO A. PENA and SUSAN
TOMASKY,  and each of them, their  attorneys-in-fact  and agents, to execute for
them,  and in their names,  and in any and all of their  capacities,  the Annual
Report of the  Company on Form 10-K,  pursuant  to Section 13 of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934,  for the fiscal year ended  December 31, 2001, and any and
all  amendments  thereto,  and to file the same,  with all exhibits  thereto and
other  documents  in  connection  therewith,  with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission,  granting unto said  attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them,
full power and  authority  to do and  perform  every act and thing  required  or
necessary to be done,  as fully to all intents and  purposes as the  undersigned
might or could do in  person,  hereby  ratifying  and  confirming  all that said
attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  or any of them,  may  lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned  have signed these presents this 21st
day of February, 2002.


   /s/ E. Linn Draper, Jr.              /s/ Thomas V. Shockley, III


   /s/ Henry W. Fayne                   /s/ Susan Tomasky


   /s/ Armando A. Pena                  /s/ J. H. Vipperman


   /s/ Robert P. Powers
Exhibit 32(i)



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







|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2005 (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.









|/s/ Gary J. TaylorGary J. Taylor
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of
System Energy Resources, Inc.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	March 9, 2006
I. DISCRINIMATION COMPLAINTS FILED: 2QTR 

FY2022 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2019 FY 2018 FY 2017

A. Complaints filed 0 0 1 4 4 1

B. Number of individual filers 0 0 1 4 4 1

C. Individual filing two or more complaints 0 0 1 0 0 0

II. BASES OF COMPLAINTS FILED: 2QTR 

FY2022 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2019 FY 2018 FY 2017

A. Race 0 0 1 2 4 0

B. Color 0 0 0 0 0 0

C. Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0

D. Reprisal 0 0 1 3 3 0

E. Sex/Gender 0 0 0 3 3 1

F. National origin 0 0 0 0 1 0

G. Equal Pay Act 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Age 0 0 0 0 0 0

I. Disability 0 0 0 1 3 1

J. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act 

(GINA) 0 0 0 0 0 0

K. Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

L. Non-EEO 0 0 0 0 0 0

III. ISSUES OF COMPLAINTS FILED: 2QTR 

FY2022 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2019 FY 2018 FY 2017

A. Appointment / Hire 0 0 0 0 0 0

B. Assignment of duties 0 0 1 2 1

C. Awards 0 0 0 0 0 0

D. Disciplinary action / reprimanded 0 0 0 0 1 0

E. Duty hours 0 0 0 0 2 0

F. Evaluation / Appraisal 0 0 0 0 1 0

G. Examination / Test 0 0 0 0 0 0

H. Harassment / Non-Sexual 0 0 1 4 4 1

I. Harassment / Sexual 0 0 0 1 0 0

J. Pay / Overtime 0 0 0 0 1 0

K. Promotion / Non-Selection 0 0 0 0 2 0

L. Reasonable accommodation 0 0 1 0 1 0

M. Reassignment 0 0 0 0 0 0

N. Termination 0 0 0 0 1 1

O. Terms / Conditions of employment 0 0 0 0 0 0

P. Time / Attendance 0 0 0 0 1 0

Q. Training 0 0 0 0 0 0

R. Other 0 0 0 0 1 0

IV. PENDING COMPLAINTS FILED PREVIOUS 

YEARS

 2QTR 

FY2022 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2019 FY 2018 FY 2017

Total complaints from previous fiscal years 0 4 2 0 2 1

Total complaints 0 4 3 4 4 2

Number of complaints pending 0

Investigation 0 0 1 0 1 1

ROI issued, pending complainant's action 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hearing 0 1 2 2 1 1

Final Agency action 0 0 0 2 2 0

Appeal with EEOC Office of Federal Operations 0 0 1 0 0 0

V. COMPLAINT INVESTIGATORS 2QTR 

FY2022 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2019 FY 2018 FY 2017

Pending complaints where investigations 

exceeds required time frames 0 0 0 0 0 0

National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC)

Notification and Federal Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act Report
VI. DISMISSALS PURSUANT TO 29 C.F.R. 2QTR 

FY2022 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2019 FY 2018 FY 2017

A. Dismissals 0 0 0 0 1 0

B. Average days pending dismissals 0 0 0 0 379 0

VII. COMPLAINTS WITHDRAWN BY 

COMPLAINANTS 0 0 0 0 0 0

VIII. FINDINGS OF DISCRIMINATION 0 0 0 0 0 0

VIIII. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT/NSA 0 0 0 0 0 0

IX. COMPLAINTS PENDING AT END OF 

FISCAL YEAR

2QTR 

FY2022 FY 2021 FY 2020 FY 2019 FY 2018 FY 2017

1 1 3 4 4 2
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ALFREDO SILVA, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-74138 Agency No. A090-145-172
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 8, 2013 ** Pasadena, California Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Carlos Alfredo Silva petitions for review of the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s determination that he was removable and not eligible for cancellation of removal. 

# FILED
MAY 24 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS-2- Silva argues that the Government faile d to prove removability based on his marijuana conviction. Even if he is correct, the BIA also found him removable based on his cocaine conviction. Silva does not challenge this second ground and is, therefore, removable. See Haile v. Holder , 658 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2011) (denying petition when alien failed to a ddress BIA’s alternative grounds for its decision). Even if Silva’s argument that he is entitled to cancellation of removal is not waived, Silva is unable to meet his burden of demonstrating that he is eligible, because, even if he is correct that his cr iminal record check was inconclusive, “an inconclusive record of conviction does not demonstrate eligibility for cancellation of removal,” and “is insufficient to sa tisfy the alien's burden of proof.” Young v. Holder , 697 F.3d 976, 989 (2012) (en banc). PETITION DENIED.