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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1217 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1217

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the taxable 
 income limit on percentage depletion for oil and natural gas produced 
                       from marginal properties.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 11, 2019

  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 eliminate the taxable 
 income limit on percentage depletion for oil and natural gas produced 
                       from marginal properties.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF TAXABLE INCOME LIMIT ON PERCENTAGE DEPLETION 
              FOR OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCED FROM MARGINAL 
              PROPERTIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 613A(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(H) Nonapplication of taxable income limit with 
                respect to marginal production.--The second sentence of 
                subsection (a) of section 613 shall not apply to so 
                much of the allowance for depletion as is determined 
                under subparagraph (A).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**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 Red Lake Exploration, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      John Di Cicco, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board
      of Directors, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that:


(1)
        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ John
                Di CiccoJohn
                  Di Cicco
                Chief
                    Financial Officer
                  December 12,
                    2007
Case 3:11-cv-00378-FLW -LHG Document 1 Filed 01/20/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1
Case 3:11-cv-00378-FLW -LHG Document 1 Filed 01/20/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2
Case 3:11-cv-00378-FLW -LHG Document 1 Filed 01/20/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 3
Case 3:11-cv-00378-FLW -LHG Document 1 Filed 01/20/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 4
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL**

**OFFICEROF HILAND HOLDINGS GP, LP**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with theaccompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months endedMarch 31, 2006 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ken Maples, Chief Financial Officer, VicePresident-Finance and Secretary of Hiland Partners GP Holdings, LLC, thegeneral partner of Hiland Holdings GP, LP (the “Company”), hereby certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.             The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 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 ofthe Company.
| Date: May 10, 2007 | /s/ Ken Maples                                                 |   |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|               | Ken Maples                                                     |
|               | Chief Financial Officer, Vice President-Finance  and Secretary |

 

1

----
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, W. Craig Turner, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MedPro Safety Products, 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, notmisleading 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, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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)) 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 itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; and

     (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 endof 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 (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) 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(s) 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 (orpersons 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.

| Dated: May 15, 2008 | /s/W. Craig Turner                   |
|---------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                |                                      |
|                | W. Craig Turner                      |
|                | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

23

----
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Brad E. Schwartz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Monarch Financial Holdings, 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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)) for the registrant
and we 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 quarterly report is being
prepared;

(b) 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

(c) 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies 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.



|                       |  |                                                   
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 8, 2006 |  | /s/ Brad E. Schwartz.                             
|                       |  | Brad E. Schwartz                                  
|                       |  | Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer



25
SCPR

- 24

- 0000 400

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

IN RE RICHARD C. WOOTTON

, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN IN GOOD STANDING

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna

, Eddins , Ginoza

, and Devens , JJ. )

Upon consideration of the petition to resign from the

practice of law in the State of Hawai ʻ i, filed by attorney

Richard C. Wootton (Petitioner), pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the

Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai ʻ i (RSCH), which

the court construes as also seeking to retain the paper license

as a memento, as authorized by RSCH Rule 1.10(b), and the

declarations submitted in support thereof, we conclude that

Petitioner has complied with the requirements of RSCH Rule 1.10.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition to resign is

granted. Petitioner may retain the paper license as a memento. Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPR-24-0000400

18-JUN-2024

01:05 PM

Dkt. 6 OGP2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g) that

Petitioner shall comply with the notice, declaration, and record

requirements of RSCH Rule 2.16(a), (b), (d) and (g).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the name

of Petitioner, attorney number 6 815 , from the roll of attorneys of the

State of Hawai ʻ i, effective with the filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, June 18 , 2024.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ V la dimir P. Devens
#### VICTOR STANLEY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CREATIVE PIPE, INC., and Mark T. Pappas, Defendants-Appellants, and Stephanie E. Pappas, and John Doe, (also known as Fred Bass), Defendants.

No. 2012-1638.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 20, 2013.

Robert B. Wolinsky, Hogan Lovells US, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee.

Joshua J. Kaufman, Venable, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellants. Of counsel on the brief was James A. Rothschild, Anderson, Coe & King, LLP, of Baltimore, MD.

NEWMAN, LOURIE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS,* Chief District Judge.

*

 Honorable Leonard Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is OrdeRed and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey P. Wood, Chief Financial Officer of Eagle Rock Energy G&P, LLC, the general partner of Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P., the general partner of Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. (the Partnership), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


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


2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.





Date: May 6, 2011Jeffrey P. WoodSenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer of Eagle RockEnergy G&P, LLC, General Partner of Eagle RockEnergy GP, L.P., General Partner o Eagle RockEnergy Partners, L.P.
Thomas S. Howard, Esq.

KIRSCH GARTENBERG HOWARD LLP

Two University Plaza 

Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 

(201) 488-4644 

thoward@kghlaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

--------------------------------------------------------------------X 

WILLIAM T. BRUCK, JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

-againstUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ERIC K. SHINSEKI, 

as Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

GARY KAO, M.D., JOHN DOES 1-50 (being the 

fictitious names of persons who are not presently known 

to plaintiff), 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------X 

Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-03353 

(AET)(TJB) 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, by his attorneys, hereby voluntarily dismisses the captioned matter with 

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Dated: August 24, 2010 

KIRSCH GARTENBERG HOWARD LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 

 By: s/Thomas S. Howard, Esq. 

Co-counsel:

Leslie Lewis, Esq. 

THE JACOB D. FUCHSBERG LAW FIRM, LLP 

500 Fifth Avenue, 45th Floor 

New York, New York 10110 

H:\2900-019 Bruck\Pleadings\Complaint and Answer\Notice of Dismissal 2nd Complaint.doc 

Case 3:10-cv-03353-AET-TJB Document 4 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 24
S05Y1131.

#### IN THE MATTER OF CLIFTON S. FULLER, JR.

(612 SE2d 801)

Decided May 9, 2005.

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before this Court pursuant to Respondent Clifton S. Fuller, Jr.’s petition for voluntary surrender of license which he filed pursuant to Bar Rule 4-227 (b) before the filing of a Formal Complaint. In the petition, Fuller, who has been a member of the State Bar of Georgia since 1977, admits that, on March 25, 2005 in Gwinnett County Superior Court, he was convicted of possession of cocaine, a felony violation of the Criminal Code of Georgia. Fuller further admits that his conviction constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d), and that the maximum penalty for this violation is disbarment. Fuller submits that the appropriate discipline to be imposed in this case is a voluntary surrender of his license to practice law, an act which he acknowledges is tantamount to disbarment. The State Bar has'no objections to Fuller’s petition.

We have reviewed the record and agree to accept Fuller’s petition for the voluntary surrender of his license. Accordingly, the name of Clifton S. Fuller, Jr. hereby is removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Fuller is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*311
      *William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, K. Gene Chapman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50736 Conference Calendar

WILBERT ANTONIO COLEMAN, Pastor, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Houston Regional Office, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-98-CV-376

- - - - - - - - - - February 10, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM: ** Wilbert Antonio Coleman appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, insufficient service, and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 12(b)(1), (4), (6). To the extent that Coleman relies upon documents which were not presented to the district court, we do not considerNo. 98-50736 -2-

3 The appellee has not moved for sanctions. We have the authority to impose sanctions sua sponte. See Coghlan v. Starkey , 852 F.2d 806, 808 (5th Cir. 1988). The appellee asks for affirmance of the dismissal but with a modification to the judgment so that dismissal is with prejudice. The appellee did not cross-appeal and therefore, cannot seek to enlarge its rights under the judgment on appeal. See Texas Commerce Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. National Royalty Corp. , 799 F.2d 1081, 1083 (5th Cir. 1986). them. See United States v. Flores , 887 F.2d 543, 546 (5th Cir. 1989). Coleman insists that his complaint is not a qui tamaction but yet still arises under 31 U.S.C. § 3730. Sections 3729 and 3730 of Chapter 31 will not support a private individual’s action against the Government or its agencies. See Coleman v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , No. 98-50168 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 1998) (unpublished). We have reviewed the remainder of Coleman’s appellate arguments. We independently conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss. , 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. It is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. This is not the first frivolous appeal brought by Coleman.

In Coleman , No. 98-50268, slip op. at 2, we cautioned Coleman of the consequences of bringing frivolous appeals and directed him to review any pending appeals to ensure that they did not raise frivolous arguments. Coleman has not heeded our warning. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Coleman is sanctioned 3 $105, thus doubling his cost of bringing this appeal. IT IS ALSO ORDEREDNo. 98-50736 -3- that Coleman remit payment to the Clerk of this Court. The Clerk of this Court and the clerks of all federal district courts within this Circuit are directed to refuse to file any pro se civil complaint or appeal by Coleman unless Coleman submits proof of satisfaction of this sanction.

APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION IMPOSED.
#### David B. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF UNIVERSITY CITY, a Municipal body politic; Unknown Haftarczyk, Individually and as Lieutenant of the Police Department of the City of University City, Missouri; Benjamin Guittar, Individually and as Police Office of the City of University City, Missouri Police Department; Jean Burks, Individually and as Police Office of the University City, Missouri Police Department; Barnard Zinn, an Individual, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-1944.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 27, 2013.

Filed: March 29, 2013.

David B. Washington, St. Lous, MO, pro se.

Peter J. Dunne, Robyn Fox, Pitzer & Snodgrass, Susan Elizabeth Bassf Wilson, Constangy & Brook, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

David B. Washington appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review of the record, *see Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home,*627 F.3d 1254, 1257 (8th Cir.2010), we conclude that there is no basis for reversal.2 Specifically, we find no trialworthy issues over whether the actions of Lieutenant Haftarc-zyk and Officer Jean Burks were objectively reasonable, *see Collins v. Bellinghausen,*153 F.3d 591, 596 (8th Cir.1998) (where constitutional claim arose from defendants’ participation in initiation of emergency commitment proceedings, inquiry “‘generally turns on the objective *559reasonableness of the action’”), or over whether Officer Benjamin Guittar was deliberately indifferent to Washington’s serious medical needs, *see Carpenter v. Gage,*686 F.3d 644, 650 (8th Cir.2012) (analysis of deliberate-indifference claim brought by arrestee is same as claim brought by inmate), ce*rt. denied,*— U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 955, 184 L.Ed.2d 728 (2013); *Laughlin v. Schriro,*430 F.3d 927, 929 (8th Cir.2005) (claim of delay in treatment requires showing of detrimental effect of delay). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2

. We have carefully reviewed Washington’s arguments for reversal, but we decline to consider new claims, arguments, or allegations, *see Stone v. Harry,*364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir.2004); and we review only the record that was before the district court when the summary judgment ruling was made, *see Maxa v. John Alden Life Ins. Co.,*972 F.2d 980, 983 (8th Cir.1992), and the claims he has not waived on appeal, *see Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp.,*481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir.2007).
June 1 8 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LARRY JOE GERKE , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00757

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

______________ __________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order that all costs in curred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Larry Joe Gerke. We further order this decision certified below for observance.