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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2822 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2822

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional tax 
          relief for small businesses, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 1, 2009

Ms. Snowe (for herself and Ms. Landrieu) 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 additional tax 
          relief for small businesses, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Expensing Permanency 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT INCREASE IN LIMITATIONS ON EXPENSING OF CERTAIN 
              DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 179 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitations) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$25,000'' and all that follows in 
        paragraph (1) and inserting ``$250,000.'',
            (2) by striking ``$200,000'' and all that follows in 
        paragraph (2) and inserting ``$800,000'',
            (3) by striking ``after 2007 and before 2011, the $120,000 
        and $500,000'' in paragraph (5)(A) and inserting ``after 2009, 
        the $250,000 and the $800,000'',
            (4) by striking ``2006'' in paragraph (5)(A)(ii) and 
        inserting ``2008'', and
            (5) by striking paragraph (7).
    (b) Permanent Expensing of Computer Software.--Section 
179(d)(1)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining section 
179 property) is amended by striking ``and before 2011''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.
                                 <all>
```
#### Rhonda Yvette SPAIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden WHEELER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-6750.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 3, 2006.

Rhonda Yvette Spain, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attor*202ney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Rhonda Yvette Spain seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 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(c)(2) (2000). 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 Spain 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.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6665

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN MARK PADGETT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CR-99-457; CA-02-3287-9-8)

Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: January 3, 2005

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Mark Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

We note that the district court granted a certificate of

appealability as to the issue of the validity of Padgett’s

conviction in light of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S.

234 (2002). Because Padgett failed to raise this issue in his

informal brief, we find that it is now waived on appeal. See 4th

Cir. R. 34(b).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John Mark Padgett, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on 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 for claims

addressed by a district court 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 both 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 Padgett

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Padgett’s

motion for an expanded certificate of appealability*

 and dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 3 -

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 357 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 357

To allow for certiorari review of certain cases denied relief or review 
      by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2009

Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Feingold) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To allow for certiorari review of certain cases denied relief or review 
      by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

    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 ``Equal Justice for United States 
Military Personnel Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED 
              FORCES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1259 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or denied'' after 
        ``granted''; and
            (2) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``or denied'' after 
        ``granted''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 867a(a) of title 
10, United States Code, is amended by striking ``The Supreme Court may 
not review by a writ of certiorari under this section any action of the 
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in refusing to grant a petition 
for review.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cayetano BRIONES, also known as Jose Gonzalez-Hernandez, also known as Javier Fuentes-Arriaga, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41507.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 20, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Sarah Beth Landau, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Cayetano Briones appeals following his guilty plea conviction for attempted illegal reentry into the United States. Briones argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Because the Government has not invoked the waiver provisions in the plea agreement, the waiver does not bind Briones. *See United States v. Story,*439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir.2006).

Briones’s constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Briones contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Briones properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined' that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.1





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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2004








In connection with the Quarterly Report of All Grade Mining, Inc. (Formerly Hybred International, Inc.) (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Kouletas, President of the Company, respectfully certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2004, that:





The Report fully complies with the requirements of the section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.














/s/ Gary Kouletas


Gary Kouletas


President (Principal Executive Officer)








Date: November 15, 2011





This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to All Grade Mining, Inc. (Formerly Hybred International, Inc.) and will be retained by All
Grade Mining, Inc. (Formerly Hybred International, Inc). and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








-20-
96-2706.

#### In re Washington.

Cuyahoga App. No. 69283.

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3519 

To stabilize the matching requirement for participants in the Hollings 

Manufacturing Partnership Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 22, 2010 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. KOHL, and Mr. LIEBERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To stabilize the matching requirement for participants in 

the Hollings Manufacturing Partnership Program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. HOLLINGS MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PART4 NERSHIP PROGRAM COST-SHARING. 

5 Section 25(c) of the National Institute of Standards 

6 and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(c)) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(7) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (3), and 

9 (5), for each of the fiscal years 2011 through 2013, 

10 the Secretary may not provide a Center with more 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3519 IS

1 than 50 percent of the costs incurred by such Center 

2 and may not require that a Center’s cost share ex3 ceed 50 percent. 

4 ‘‘(8) Not later than 2 years after the date of 

5 the enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall 

6 submit a report to Congress on the cost share re7 quirements under the Centers program, which 

8 shall— 

9 ‘‘(A) analyze various cost share structures, 

10 including— 

11 ‘‘(i) the cost share structure in place 

12 before the date of the enactment of this 

13 paragraph; 

14 ‘‘(ii) the cost share structure in place 

15 under paragraph (7); and 

16 ‘‘(iii) the effect of such cost share 

17 structures on individual Centers and the 

18 overall program; and 

19 ‘‘(B) include a recommendation for struc20 turing the cost share requirement after fiscal 

21 year 2013 to best provide for the long-term sus22 tainability of the program.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF BALDWIN & LYONS, INC.**

 

 

|   | NAME | STATE OR JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION OR INCORPORATION |
|--------|------|--------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Protective Insurance Company | Indiana |
|------------------------------|---------|

 

| Sagamore Insurance Company (1) | Indiana |
|--------------------------------|---------|

 

| B&L Insurance, Ltd. | Bermuda |
|-------------------------|---------|

 

| B&L Brokerage Services, Inc. | Indiana |
|----------------------------------|---------|

 

| Transportation Specialty Insurance Agency, Inc. | Michigan |
|-------------------------------------------------|----------|

 

| Protective Specialty Insurance Company (2) | Indiana |
|--------------------------------------------|---------|

| Baldwin and Lyons Capital Markets, LLC | Delaware |
|----------------------------------------|----------|

 
|   | (1) | Wholly-owned subsidiary of Protective Insurance Company |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (2) | Wholly-owned subsidiary of Protective Insurance Company |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------|

76

----
#### Janet TASHER, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent.

No. 2006-3146.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 27, 2006.

*ORDER*

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Janet Tasher moves for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing her petition for review for failure to file a brief and for an extension of time to file her brief. Tasher states that the Department of the Navy consents.

Tasher states that she did not receive a copy of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s certified list. Tasher’s brief has now been received.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motions are granted. The mandate is recalled, the dismissal order is vacated, *1023and the petition for review is reinstated. The Department’s brief is due within 40 days of the date of filing of this order.
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-F ("Issuer") for the period
ending  March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 14th day of May, 2004.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-F
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-F and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-F and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1 ]

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Hunt Gold Corporation, f/k/a Prime Time Group, Inc. (“Hunt Gold”) because questions have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning, among other things, Hunt Gold's gold mining exploration business.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Hunt Gold.

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in Hunt Gold securities is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 15, 2009, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on June 26, 2009.

By the Commission.

Jill M. Peterson,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-14300 Filed 6-15-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No.  33-69306;  No.  33-62887;  No.  333-05987;  and No.
333-59941)  of our  report  dated  March  29,  2000  relating  to the  financial
statements  which appears in the 1999 Annual Report to  Shareholders  of Michael
Baker  Corporation,   which  is  incorporated  by  reference  in  Michael  Baker
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
-------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 29, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NISOURCE INC. FOR THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    4,778,397
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    614,326
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         915,271
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       304,421
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 343,152
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,955,567
<COMMON>                                       379,644
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      162,724
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            824,893
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,367,261
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           52,780
<PREFERRED>                                     83,631
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           417,102
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             348,245
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                    1,510,306
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 252,850
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  211,967
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               2,711,455
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,955,597
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,067,549
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            47,884
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     888,641
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     888,641
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        178,908
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,277
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 182,185
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        47,610
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,691
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      7,075
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   79,616
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        33,305
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         235,439
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62


</TABLE>