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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3735 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide electronic filing 

receipts to taxpayers who file tax returns via electronic filing process, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2021 

Mr. VELA 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 provide 

electronic filing receipts to taxpayers who file tax returns 

via electronic filing process, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘E-Filing Standards 

5 Improvement Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3735 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELECTRONIC FILING REQUIREMENTS AMENDED TO 

2 INCLUDE RECEIPTS, REJECTION EXPLA3 NATIONS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6011(f) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(3) The Secretary shall promote the use of 

8 electronically filed returns by requiring that all tax9 payers submitting returns of tax via electronic filing 

10 process shall be issued an e-filing receipt via the tax11 payer’s chosen method of correspondence which shall 

12 indicate the acceptance or rejection of a return, and 

13 if such return is rejected— 

14 ‘‘(A) such receipt shall provide information 

15 about the steps necessary to resolve the issue 

16 causing such rejection, 

17 ‘‘(B) the taxpayer shall be allowed 15 busi18 ness days to correct and re-submit such return, 

19 and 

20 ‘‘(C) if such return is not re-submitted 

21 within 15 business days, such return shall be 

22 treated as a paper return.’’. 

23 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 6651 of 

24 such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 

25 new paragraph: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3735 IH

1 ‘‘(k) TREATMENT OF RETURNS GRANTED EX2 TENSION OR TREATED AS PAPER RETURNS UNDER

3 SECTION 6011(f).—In the case of a return granted 

4 a 15 business day extension or treated as a paper 

5 return under section 6011(f), such return shall be 

6 treated as timely filed by the taxpayer and not sub7 ject to the addition to the tax under subsection 

8 (a).’’. 

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to returns of tax submitted filing 

11 via electronic filing process after the date of the enactment 

12 of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**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 TetriDyn Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David W. Hempstead, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/ David W. Hempstead

 

David W. Hempstead

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer

May 12, 2009

 

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.
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Big Ridge, Inc., Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-116-R, et al., Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC, Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-118-R, et al., and Independence Coal Co., Docket Nos. WEVA 2011-402-R, et al.              

#   Big Ridge, Inc., Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-116-R, et al., Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC, Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-118-R, et al., and Independence Coal Co., Docket Nos. WEVA 2011-402-R, et al.

meeting_101311.pdf

meeting101311.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 26 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk Dec ember 26 , 2019

15 9510(60)

159511

SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 159510, 159511

v COA: 340871, 341589

Midland CC: 13

- 009864

- CK

M.A.P. MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,

AMERISURE INSURANCE COMPANY, and

AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants

- Appellees

.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant s

- appellee s to extend the time

for filing their brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted as timely filed if submitted

on or before Febr uary 14 , 2020

.
#### Warren Leroy MILLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Brian BELLEQUE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 09-35971.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 7, 2010.*

Filed Dec. 9, 2010.

Francesca Freccero, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Cecil Reniche-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Miller claims that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when his trial counsel, *218Janet Boytano, failed to investigate Debbie Barreras and failed to locate other girls who had lived in Barreras’s foster home.

To prevail on a Sixth Amendment claim, Miller must demonstrate that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the deficiency. *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 690-92, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The state post-conviction review (“PCR”) court found that Miller’s evidence demonstrated, at most, that Boytano knew that one other girl who had previously lived with Barreras had made false accusations of sexual abuse. The PCR court’s factual findings are entitled to deference, and we conclude that they are not unreasonable in light of the evidence. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Given its findings, the PCR court’s conclusion — that Boytano’s failure to investigate was not deficient — was a reasonable application of *Strickland. See id.*§ 2254(d).

Because Miller has failed to demonstrate that Boytano’s performance was “professionally unreasonable,” we need not decide whether Miller was prejudiced by Boytano’s failure to investigate. *See Strickland,*466 U.S. at 691, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*218ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2459

_____________________________

NATHAN DEANE BENSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

William F. Stone, Judge.

February 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

James C. Campbell of Law Office of James C. Campbell, P.A., 

Shalimar, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-01-2000
<CASH>                                            5785
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      19886
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            8746
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              8853
<LOANS>                                         163815
<ALLOWANCE>                                       2974
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  200744
<DEPOSITS>                                      153720
<SHORT-TERM>                                      8615
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1597
<LONG-TERM>                                      17500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         19795
<OTHER-SE>                                       (439)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  200744
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   3494
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  410
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    43
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  3947
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1331
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1729
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2218
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1069
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1069
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       752
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.94
<LOANS-NON>                                        879
<LOANS-PAST>                                        57
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    879
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  2792
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       25
<RECOVERIES>                                        26
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 2973
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2921
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             52


</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Lithium Technology Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Klaus Brandt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 21, 2007



/s/ Klaus BrandtKlaus BrandtChief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMS CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Hudson Holding Corporation and Subsidiaries on
Form S-8 (File No. 333-150432) of our report dated June 29, 2010 with respect to our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Hudson Holding Corporation and Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2010 and 2009 and for the years
then ended, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hudson Holding Corporation and Subsidiaries for the year ended March 31, 2010.



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Marcum LLP    
|                  
|New York, New York
|June 29, 2010
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 Annual Report of Boston Acoustics, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending March 27, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Moses A. Gabbay, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, solely pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as applicable 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/ Moses A. GabbayMoses A. GabbayPresident andChief Executive OfficerJuly 12, 2004




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in the typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David VAUGHT, also known as “Powder”, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10110.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 20, 2010.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Peter Christian Smythe, Peter Smythe, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WIENER, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

D efendant-App ellant David Vaught appeals his jury conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Here, among other facts, the government was required to prove the existence of a conspiratorial agreement between Vaught and at least one other person to distribute methamphetamine. We review a jury verdict *de novo,*determining “whether a rational jury could have found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on each element of the offense, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence and viewing all credibility determinations in the light most favorable to the verdict.” 1

Although there was no direct evidence of an express agreement between Vaught and others to distribute methamphetamine, we are convinced that the jury heard sufficient circumstantial evidence to find that such an agreement existed.2 There was testimony that Vaught purchased one or two pounds of methamphetamine from the Riojas family’s illicit drug organization every week over an extended period of time, that Vaught resold much of this methamphetamine in identified areas of Ft. Worth, that one or more of the Riojas family members knew that some or most of the methamphetamine they transferred to Vaught was intended for resale and discussed with him the quantity sold, and that the Riojas organization would not sell methamphetamine to customers from the areas where Vaught sold it. Viewed together in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, this evidence is sufficient to support a rational jury’s conclusion that Vaught entered into an agreement, implicit if not express, to distribute methamphetamine, thereby elevating his relationship with the Riojas organization to that of a conspiracy, not merely that of buyer/seller as urged by Vaught. Accordingly, his con*833viction and the district court’s judgment based thereon are

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.

1

. *United. States v. Solis,*299 F.3d 420, 445 (5th Cir.2002).

2

. An agreement may be established exclusively by circumstantial evidence. *See United States v. Reyes,*227 F.3d 263, 267 (5th Cir.2000); *United States v. Duncan,*919 F.2d 981, 991 (5th Cir.1990).
**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**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, James T. Sartain, President and Chief Executive Officer of FirstCity Financial Corporation (“registrant”), certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)                the Quarterly Report of the registrant on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (“Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

 
| Date:   May 13, 2011 | /s/   James T. Sartain                     |
|----------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                 | James   T. Sartain                         |
|                 | *President   and**Chief Executive Officer* |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the registrant, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----