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

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 739

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the unrelated 

business income limitation on investment in certain debt-financed properties. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2003

Mr. RAMSTAD (for himself and Mr. POMEROY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the unrelated business income limitation on investment 

in certain debt-financed properties.

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 ‘‘Small Business Invest5 ment Company Capital Access Act of 2003’’. 
2

HR 739 IH 

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF UNRELATED BUSINESS INCOME 

2 LIMITATION ON INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN 

3 DEBT–FINANCED PROPERTIES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 514(c)(6) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to acquisition indebted6 ness) is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘include an obligation’’ and in8 serting ‘‘include—

9 ‘‘(A) an obligation’’, 

10 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert11 ing ‘‘, or’’, and 

12 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(B) indebtedness incurred by a small 

14 business investment company licensed under the 

15 Small Business Investment Act of 1958 which 

16 is evidenced by a debenture—

17 ‘‘(i) issued by such company under 

18 section 303(a) of such Act, or 

19 ‘‘(ii) held or guaranteed by the Small 

20 Business Administration.’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

22 subsection (a) shall apply to acquisitions made on or after 

23 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
**OFFJCE OF**  **THE AITORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  

## GROVER

**SELLERR AnuRNLIGPYRIL** **Honwable Jw**  **P. Fbak,**  **p8&8 4** 



### Sac~ticn

14 of Art. 6144b, V. **A.** 

### C. 8. (theAnt 0~8atlng **f&8 s** **‘ exaa**  **Cenbnnhl C0m4b88Um)**  

### ~wldod **aa follinmt**
# Index

# Table 2.1

# Table 2.2

# Table 2.3

# Table 2.4

# Table 2.5

# Table 2.6

# Table 2.7

# Table 2.8

# Table 2.9

# Table 2.10

# Table 2.11
Exhibit 10.1
 MEDQUIST INC. LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
 ARTICLE 1
PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
 1.1. Purpose.
 ARTICLE 2
DEFINITIONS
 2.1 Award
 2.2. Award Agreement
 2.3. Base Value
 2.4. Benchmark Year
 2.5. Board
 2.6. Change of Control Exhibit A
 2.7. Code
 2.8. Committee
 2.9. Company
 2.10. Disability




---



##### 



2.11. EBITDA
 2.12. Equity Value
 2.13. Equity Value Appreciation
 2.14. Participant
 2.15. Performance Period
 2.16. Plan
 2.17. Point
 2.18. Point Value
 ARTICLE 3
ELIGIBILITY AND ADMINISTRATION
 3.1. Eligibility
 3.2. Administration
 - 2 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE 4
GRANT OF AWARDS
 4.1. Total Number of Points
 4.2. Grant of Points.
 4.3. Forfeitures.
 4.4. Award Agreements
 ARTICLE 5
DETERMINATION OF POINT VALUE
 5.1. Performance Period.
 - 3 -




---



##### 



5.2. Determination of Point Value.
 ARTICLE 6
VESTING AND PAYMENT OF AWARDS
 6.1. Vesting and Payment.
 6.2. Mandatory Deferrals.
 ARTICLE 7
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS
 7.1. Prior to End of Performance Period.
 7.2. Other than for Death or Disability following the End of the Performance Period
 7.3. Death or Disability following the End of the Performance Period.
 ARTICLE 8
ADJUSTMENT AND CHANGE OF CONTROL PROVISIONS
 8.1. Adjustments.
 - 4 -




---



##### 



8.2. Impact of a Change of Control.
 ARTICLE 9
EFFECTIVE DATE; AMENDMENTS
 9.1. Effective Date.
 9.2. Amendment and Modification of the Plan
 ARTICLE 10
MISCELLANEOUS
 10.1. Tax Withholding
 10.2. Transferability of Awards
 10.3. Right of Discharge Reserved; Claims to Awards
 - 5 -




---



##### 



10.4. Nature of Payments
 10.5. Other Plans
 10.6. Severability
 10.7. Unfunded Status of the Plan.
 10.8. Governing Law
 - 6 -




---



##### 



10.9. Captions
 10.10. Code Section 409A.
 10.11. Clawback
 - 7 -




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 The following rules are derived from Treasury Regulation 1.409A
-3(i)(5), and are to be construed in accordance with such regulation.
 Change in the Ownership of the Company.
  Change in the Ownership of a Substantial Portion of the Assets of the Company.
   (i)
    
    A person who was a shareholder of the Company immediately before the asset transfer, in
exchange for or with respect to the Companys stock;
 (ii)
    
    An entity, 50 percent or more of the total value or voting power of which is owned,
directly or indirectly, by the Company;
 (iii)
    
    A person (or more than one person acting as a group) that owns, directly or indirectly, 50
percent or more of the total value or voting power of all the outstanding stock of the Company;
or
 - 8 -




---



##### 



(iv)
    
    An entity, at least 50 percent of the total value or voting power of which is owned,
directly or indirectly, by a person described in the preceding clause.
  Persons Acting As a Group
  Attribution of Stock Ownership .
  - 9 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          21,842
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,304
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,807
<PP&E>                                          43,917
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,644
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                    (56,137)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,457
<SALES>                                          1,755
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,186
<CGS>                                            1,326
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,077
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,018)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,018)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,018)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.80)
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                      RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Internal Hydro International,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alberto
Pastrana, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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.


Date:    January 30, 2006                     /s/ Alberto Pastran
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Alberto Pastrana,
                                              Chief Financial Officer of
                                              Internal Hydro International, Inc.
Exhibit 32.1


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


In connection with the Form 10-QSB of DirectView, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Perry, Chief
Executive 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, that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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




/s/Michael Perry
Michael Perry
Chief Executive Officer
May 16, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


<page>
#### PRUDENTIAL STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, in its own behalf and as owner of THE SS NEWBERRY VICTORY v. The CURTIS BAY TOWING COMPANY.

No. 3859.

United States District Court D. Maryland, Admiralty Division.

May 9, 1957.

*357Robert H. Williams, Jr., Baltimore, Md., and Stapleton, Flynn & Lilly, New York City, proctors for libelant.

Lord, Whip & Coughlan, Baltimore, Md., and Burlingham, Hupper & Kennedy, New York City, proctors for respondent.

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

Respondent has moved to vacate libel-ant’s notice to take pretrial depositions of the master, mate, engineer and two deck hands of the tug “Cove Point”, for the purpose of discovery. The collision out of which this suit in admiralty arose occurred while that tug was helping to undock libelant’s steamship “Newberry Victory” in Baltimore harbor, and the master of the tug was allegedly on the ship, directing her maneuvers, leaving the mate in charge of the tug. The suit was filed in the Southern District of New York, and was removed here at the request of respondent, for its convenience.

The taking and use of depositions in admiralty are fully discussed in Mercado v. United States, 2 Cir., 184 F.2d 24, and Dowling v. Isthmian S. S. Corp., 3 Cir., 184 F.2d 758. The discovery aspect of the problem is reviewed in Standard Steamship Co. v. United States, D.C.D.Del., 126 F.Supp. 583. The general principles which should guide an admiralty judge in approaching such problems were well stated by Judge Woolsey in The Cleona, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 37 F.2d 599. I conclude that oral discovery depositions may not be taken as of course and by notice in admiralty, at least in the absence of some rule; but that an admiralty court may order oral depositions for discovery if the movant shows special circumstances or a fact situation warranting such an order. The unreported opinion of Judge Chesnut in Aceinanto, Ltd., v. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co., (The Ocean Liberty) No. 3028 in this court, is not to the contrary. The use which may be made of such a deposition is not before me at this time.

The relationship between the tug and the ship in this case was such that the interests of justice require some appropriate means by which libelant can learn before trial what the master, mate, and crew of the tug know about the collision. Oral depositions, taken when they will not unduly interfere with respondent’s operations, are an appropriate method. The rule and practice in the Southern District of New York, where the suit was originally filed, sanction such depositions. Application of A. Pellegrino & Son, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 11 F.R.D. 209.

Respondent’s motion to vacate libel-ant’s notice to take pretrial depositions is granted, but I will enter an order providing for the taking of depositions at such times and upon such conditions with respect to costs and expenses as counsel may agree upon, or as may be fixed by the court if counsel cannot agree.

I have requested a committee of the bar to consider and recommend to this court what if any local rules with respect to depositions and discovery should be adopted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
JUNE 30, 1997 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-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          14,826
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      276
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,662
<PP&E>                                           1,486
<DEPRECIATION>                                     775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           185
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,479
<SALES>                                            151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   254
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,342
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,087)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ThermoEnergy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis
C. Cossey, Chief Executive 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, that to the best of 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Dennis C. Cossey
----------------------------
Dennis C. Cossey
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7607

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JOHN MAURICE HENOUD, a/k/a John Harvey, a/k/a J. M. Harvey, 

a/k/a J. M. Hardey, a/k/a Jerry Geohn Davidson, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:04-cr-00004-JBF-TEM-1; 2:08-cv-00587-JBF-TEM) 

Submitted: December 9, 2009 Decided: January 26, 2010 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John Maurice Henoud, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

John Maurice Henoud seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Henoud 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 23.1
                        Consent of Independent Auditors

      We  consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the Form 8-K of FFP
Marketing Company,  Inc. dated December 28, 1997 of our report dated March 14,
1997, relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of FFP Partners,  L.P., and
subsidiaries  as of December 29, 1996 and  December 31, 1995,  and the related
consolidated  statements of operations,  partners' capital, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three year period ended  December  29, 1996,  and the
related schedule,  which report appears in the registration  statement on Form
S-4 (No. 333-41709) of FFP Marketing Company, Inc.

                                                KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Fort Worth, Texas
January 12, 1998
EX-31.2
        Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF THOMAS E. FERNEAU

                    RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas E. Ferneau, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of World Am
Communications, 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.  [omitted since the report does not contain any financial statements];

4.  The small business issuer'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))
[omitted pursuant to extended compliance period] for the small
business issuer 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
small business issuer, 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)  [omitted pursuant to extended compliance period]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter
(the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's
auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small
business issuer'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 small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: April 22, 2004                  /s/ Thomas E. Ferneau
                                       Thomas E. Ferneau
                                       Chief Financial Officer
#### Lynn Edelson et al., Appellants, v Placeway Construction Corporation et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 481]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered January 24, 2005, as (a) granted the motion of the defendants Kent Iron Works, Inc., and Omar Molina for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, (b) granted the separate motion of the defendants *845Placeway Construction Corporation and County of Westchester for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and (c), in effect, searched the record and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the remaining defendant, B & B Iron Works, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The moving defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether they caused the injuries of the plaintiff Lynn Edelson *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). A plaintiff alleging injuries from a toxic chemical exposure must provide objective evidence that the exposure caused the injury (see *Parker v Mobil Oil Corp.,*16 AD3d 648, 653 [2005], *affd*7 NY3d 434 [2006]). The plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit merely asserted in conclusory fashion that Edelson’s symptoms were the result of her exposure to the chemical Lustran. No objective tests were administered to diagnose or treat Edelson. Accordingly, as the opinions reached in the plaintiffs’ expert affidavit were unsubstantiated and speculative, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any of the defendants caused Edelson’s alleged injuries *(see Romano v Stanley,*90 NY2d 444, 451 [1997]; *Caton v Doug Urban Constr. Co.,*65 NY2d 909, 911 [1985]; *Stanski v Ezersky,*228 AD2d 311, 312 [1996]). Florio, J.P, Goldstein, Luciano and Lunn, JJ., concur.